THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 

William  Popper 


"^SO^W 


^^o-mmm'^ 


i?     '^, 


\WE-UNiVER5 


^f^^l^ONV-SOT 


lUNlVtKA/iA 


Pi^' 


^ 


(?^^ 


mmmm  to  thi  TiLioD 


HISTORICAL   AND    LITERARY    INTRODUCTION. 


LEGAL    HERMENEUTICS    OF    THE    TALMUD. 


TALMUDICAL   TERMINOLOGY   and    METHODOLOGY. 


OUTLINES    OF    TALMUDICAL    ETHICS. 


APPENDIX. 

Key  to  the  Al)])reviations  used  in  the  Talmud 
and  its  Commentaries. 


M.     MIELZINER,     PH.    D., 

Profesmr  of  Talmud  at  the  Hebrew  Union  College. 


The  Ameeican   Hebrew  Publishing  House. 

THE     BLOCH     PRINTING     COMPANY. 

CINCINNATI    —     AND    —     CHICAGO. 

1894. 


Copyrighted  by 

M.    MIELZINER,    PH.    D. 

1894. 


INSCRIBED 

TO    THE 

BLESSED     MEMORY 

OF     MV 

Beloved   Brother 
EPH  RAI  M      Ml  ELZINER 

LATE    OF    THORN,    GERMANY. 


""■-^^ 


PREFACE. 

The  Talmud  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the  nio.st  remarkable 
literary  productions  of  antiquity.  In  its  twelve  folio  volumes 
it  embodies  the  mental  labors  of  the  ancient  Jewish  teachers 
during  a  period  of  about  eight  hundred  years.  The  attention 
of  these  teachers  was  directed  particularly  to  expounding 
and  developing  the  religious,  moral  and  civil  law  of  the  Bible. 
The  pages  of  this  great  work  are,  besides,  replete  with 
wise  observations,  ethical  maxims,  beautiful  legends  and 
parables,  and  exegetical  explanations.  We  also  find  in  it 
valuable  historical  and  ethnographical  material,  as  well  as 
occasional  references  to  the  various  branches  of  ancient  know- 
ledge and  science. 

The  Talmud  is  also  remarkable  for  the  powerful  influence 
it  exerted  upon  the  thought  and  life  of  the  Jews  during  the 
Middle  Ages,  yes,  even  down  to  quite  recent  times.  Its 
authority  was  second  only  to  that  of  the  Bible.  Although 
modern  Jews  have  emancipated  themselves  more  or  less 
from  its  authority,  the  Talmud  still  remains  a  venerable 
literary  monument  of  a  great  and  important  e])och  in  the 
development  of  Judaism.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  a  valuable 
source  of  religious  and  ethical  doctrines  as  well  as  of  scientific 
investigation. 

In  our  day,  quite  a  general  interest  in  this  literary  monu- 
ment of  antiquity  is  being  awakened.  This  increasing  inter- 
est is  manifested  not  only  by  the  publication  of  numerous 
works  and  monographs  on  Talmudical  topics,  but  also  by  the 


VI  Peeface. 

fact  that  several  universities  and  colleges  abroad  and  in  this 
country  have  established  chairs  for  the  study  of  this  special 
branch  of  literature. 

The  present  work  which  I  have  called  "Introduction  to  the 
Talmud"  is  the  result  of  many  years'  labor  and  of  a  long  experi- 
ence as  professor  of  the  Talmudical  branches  at  the  Hebrew 
Union  College.  It  is  intended  to  facilitate  the  exceedingly 
difficult  study  of  an  intricate  subject.  It  is  the  first  comprehen- 
sive work  of  its  kind  in  the  English  language,  yes,  it  might  be 
said,  in  any  modern  language,  if  we  except  Prof.  Herman  L. 
Strack's  ''Einleituug  in  den  Talmud",  a  book  which,  though 
treating  our  '.sul^ject  with  scientific  exactness  and  impartiality, 
was  not  intended  to  cover  the  whole  ground  as  is  attempted  in 
the  present  publication. 

Earlier  works  of  this  kind,  from  the  eleventh  century  down 
to  our  time,  have  been  written  in  Hebrew  or  rather  in  the  Ral)- 
binical  idiom,  and  hence  are  accessible  to  Rabbinical  scholars 
only.  Valuable  literary  material,  the  result  of  keen  critical 
research  into  our  subject,  has  been  published  by  some  modern 
scholars,  among  whom  may  l)e  named  the  late  Z.  Frankel,  and 
1.  II.  Weiss.'  The  results  rcachc<l  by  these  scholars  have 
been  duly  considered  in  our  "Historical  and  Literary  Intro- 
duction". 

Regarding  tlu^  second  an<I  third  ])!irts  of  this  work, 
I  had  to  rely  almost  entirely  on  my  own  researches.  The 
only  modern  work  on  Talmudical  Hermeneutics  is  Dr.  II.  S. 
Hirschfeld's  "Halachische  Exegesc".  Rut  the  usefulness  of  this 
learned     work     is      greatly    impaired     by     the     fact     that, 


'  The  literature  on  this  subject  is  given  further  on  in  the  chapter 
"Auxiliaries  to  the  study  of  the   Tahuud"  pp.  83—85. 


Preface,  vii 

the  author  cast  it  into  a  philosophical  fonn  to  which  the 
subject-matter  does  not  readily  lend  itself. 

It  has  been  my  endeavor  to  present  the  methods  of  the  Tal- 
mudical  interpretation  of  the  Bible  in  the  proper  light.  The 
application  of  the  various  hermeneutical  rules  is  illustrated  by 
numerous  examples  ';vhich  have  been  carefully  selected,and  which 
will  atford  the  student  an  opportunity  of  becoming  familiar  with 
some  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Talmudical  Law. 

Part  III  of  this  Introduction  is  the  first  attempt  at  present- 
ing the  Methodology  and  Terminology  of  the  Talmud  in  a 
strictly  systematical  way.  It  is,  to  some  extent,  an  exposition 
of  the  Dialectics  of  the  Kabl)is,  an  analysis  of  their  discussions 
antLdebates.  The  references  and  examples  added  to  each  oft  he 
technical  terms  and  phrases  show  their  prevalence  in  all  sections 
of  the  Talmud.  I  may  be  pardoned  in  entertaining  tire  hope  that 
this  portion  of  my  work  will  be  found  a  reliable  guide  through 
the  labyrinth  of  Talmudical  discussions. 

The  appended  treatise  "Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics"  is 
essentially  the  contents  of  my  paper  on  that  subject  read  at  the 
World's  Parliament  of  Religions  in  Chicago. 

The  alphabetical  Register  of  the  principal  Tanaini  and  Amo- 
raim,  the  Index  of  technical  Terms  and  Phrases,  and  the  ''Key 
to  the  Abbreviations  used  in  the  Talmud  and  its  commentaries" 
will,  I  hope,  add  to  the  usefulness  oi  this  work. 

Cincinnati,  March,  1894. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


TABLE     OK     CONTENTS. 


PART    I. 
HISTORICAL    AND    LITERARY   INTRODUCTION. 

Page. 
THK    TALMUn    AND    ITS   COMPONENT    FARTS.  '^ 

CHAPTER    F.       THE    MISHNA. 

Its      Ori2[in,      Compilation     and      Division. 
Order   of   Succession,   Names  and   General 
•  Contents   of    its    ()3  Tracts.      Language   of 
the   Mishna.  ------  4-16 

CHAPTER  J  I.     WORKS    KINDRED    TO    THE    MISHNA. 

Tosephta,  Mechilta,  Siphra,  Siphre ;  Frag- 
mentary Baraithoth.  .        -        -        -  17-21 

CHAPTER  III.    THE    AUTHORITIES   OF  THE   MISHNA. 

The  Sopherim,  the  "  Zugoth,"  the  Tanaim. 
The  six  Generations  of  the  latter.  Char- 
acteristics and  Biographical  Sketches  of 
the  principal  Tanaim.  -        -        -         -         22-39 

CHAPTER   IV.    THE    EXPOUNDERS   OF  THE   MISHNA. 

Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Amoraim. 
Their  Division  into  Generations.  Bio- 
graphical Sketches  of  the  principal  Amo- 
raim. -_.---.  40-55 

CHAPTER  V.      THE   GEMARA. 

Classification  of  its  Contents  into  Halacha 
and  Agada.  Compilation  of  the  Palastinian 
and  the  Babylonian  Gemara.  The  two 
Gemaras  compared  with  each  other.  -       56-62 

CHAPTER  VI.     APOCtlYPHAL    APPENDICES    TO    THE 

TALMUD.         ------  63-64 

CHAPTER  VII.  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  TALMUD. 

A.  On  the  Babylonian  Talmud.  B.  Exclu- 
sively on  the  Mishna.  C.  On  the  Palesti- 
nian Talmud.  ------      61-71 


X.  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS. 


Page. 


CHAPTER  Till.    EPITOMES   AND   CODIFICATIONS. 

A.  Compendiums  of  the  Talmud,  by  Alfasi 
and  by  Asher  1).  Jechiel.  B.  The  Codes,  by 
Maimonides,  by  Moses  of  Coucy,  by  Jacob  b. 
Asher  and  by  Joseph  Karo.  C  Collections 
of  the  Agadic  Portions  of  the  Talmud.       -        72-76 

CHAPTER   IX.     MANUSCRIPTS     AND     PRINTED     EDI- 
TIONS. .-----  77-80 

CHAPTER    X.       AUXILIARIES  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE 
TALMUD. 

A.  Lexicons.  B.  Grammars.  C.  Chres- 
tomathies.  D.  Introductory  Works,  a. 
Older  Works,  b.  Modern  Works  in  He- 
brew, c.  Works  and  Articles  in  Modern 
Languages.  '/.  Historical  Works,  e.  En- 
cyclopedical Works.  /.  Some  Other  Books 
of  Reference.         ------        81-87 

CHAPTER  XI.  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  TALMUD. 

A.   The   Mishna.     B.   The   Babylonian. 

C.  The  Palestinian  Talmud.  -        -  88-92 

CHAPTER  XII.    BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Modern  Works  and  Monographs  on  Tal- 
mudicai  Subjects.  -----      93-102 

CHAPTER  XIII.  1.   OPINIONS  ON   THE  VALUE  OF  THE 

TALMUD.  103-107 

2.    WHY   STUDY   THE   TALMUD.  108-114 


H*  A  RT    I  I . 

LEGAL  HKRMENEUTICS  OF  THE  TALMUD. 

1.  I.NTRODKTION. 

Definition.  Plain  and  .Artificial  Interpre- 
tation. Legal  and  Hoiniletic.al  Interpreta- 
tion. -.--...         117-120 

2.  ORIGIN    AND    DEVELOPMENT   OF   ARTIFICIAL   IN- 

TERPRETATION. 

Iliilffl's  Seven  Hermenentic  Rules.  A  New 
Method,  l)y  Niilium.  Develojjment  f)f  this 
Method,  by  K.  Akiba.  The  Thirteen  Rules 
of  R.  Ibhmael.     Literature.  -        -  120-129 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


EXPOSITION   OF   HERMENEUTIC    RULES. 


THE    INFERENCE    FROM    MINOR    AND 
MAJOR. 

THE   ANALOGY. 

A.  Gezera  Shava.  .        -        - 

B.  Heckesh.  .        -        .        _        - 


CHAPTER   I. 
CHAPTER   II. 

CHAPTER  III.  GENERALIZATION  OF  SPECIAL  LAWS. 

CHAPTER  IT.  THE  GENERAL  AND  THE  PARTICULAR. 

CHAPTER  V.  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  RULE  OF 
GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   - 

CHAPTER  VI.  1.  EXPLANATION  FROM  THE  CONTEXT. 


2.  RECONCILIATION 
PASSAGES. 


OF  CONFLICTING 


XI. 

Page. 

130-141 

142-152 
152-155 

156-162 

163-168 

169-173 
174-176 


CHAPTER    VI!, 


ADDITIONAL   RULES. 

A.  Juxtaposition.  B.  Restrictions  in  the 
Application  of  Analogy.  C.  Limited  or 
Unlimited  Effect  of  an  Analogy.  D.  Refu- 
tation and  Reinstatement  of  Hermeneutic 
Arguments.  E.  The  Theory  of  Extension 
and  Limitation.  F.  "  Mikra  "  or  "  Masora." 
Closing  Remark.  .        .        .        - 


177-187 


PARI^    III. 

TALMUDICAL   TERMINOLOGY    AND   METHODOLOGY. 
Prefatory.  ..-.-.----  190 

CHAPTER  I.  TERMS  AND  PHRASES  REGARDING 
THE  STRUCTURE  OF  A  MISHNA 
PARAGRAPH 191-197 

CHAPTER    II.      MODES  OP  TREATING  AN  ANONYMOUS 

MISHNA   PARAGRAPH.      -        -        -        198-206 

CHAPTER  III.     THE       GEMARA       CRITICISING      THE 

MISHNA.  .        -        -        .         -  207-215 

CHAPTER  lY.      DISCUSSING     THE     DIFFERENCE     OF 

OPINION    IN    A    MISHNA.         -        -        216-219 

CHAPTER    V.       QUOTING  THE  MISHNA  AND  KINDRED 


WORKS. 


220-223 


XII.  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

Page. 

CHAPTER   VI.      DEFINITION    OF  AND    PHRASES    CON- 
CERNING  MEMRA.      -        -        -         -        224-226 


CHAPTER  VII.    TREATMENT   OF   A  PLAIN   MEMRA. 


227-230 


CHAPTER  VIII.    TREATMENT   OF  A  MEMRA  CONTAIN- 

ING   A   DIFFERENCE   OF  OPINION.       2;n-23(; 


CHAPTER  IX. 


CHAPTER  X. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


CHAPTER  XH. 


ASKING  AND  ANSWERING  QUESTIONS. 

Classification:  1.  Questions  of  Investi- 
gation. 2.  Questions  of  Astonishment. 
3.  Questions  of  Objection.  Some  Special 
Kinds  of  Objection.  Tlie  Dilemma.  The 
Rejoinder.  4.  Questions  of  Proljlem  and 
Their  Solution.  .        .        .        - 


237-246 


ARGUMENTATION. 

1.  Terms  and  Phrases  Introducing  an 
Argument.  2.  Classification  of  Arguments  : 
a.  Argument  From  Common  Sense,  b. 
Argument  From  Authority,  c.  Argument 
From  Construction,  d.  Argument  From 
Analogy,  e.  Argument  a  fortiori.  3.  Indi- 
rect Argumentation.  4.  Direct  and  Indirect 
Arguments  Combined.  ...  247-253 

REFUTATION. 

Definition  and  Term",  n.  The  Refutation 
of  a  Proposition,  b.  Procedure  of  Refuting 
the  Various  Kinds  of  Arguments.  -         204-260 

THE    DEBATE. 

Definition  and  Terms.  The  Principal  De- 
baters. Illustration  of  a  Debate.  Anony- 
mous  Discussions  and  Debates.  -  261-264 


I'ART    IV. 
OUTLINES   OF   TALMUDICAL   ETHICS.     265-280 


Alphabetical    Index  of  Tanaim  and  Amoraim. 
Index  of  Explained  Terms  and  Phrases. 


281-282 

283-285 


APRENOIX:. 

Key  to  the  Abbreviations  used  in  the  'I'nhnud 
and  its  Commentaries.  .         .         .         - 


286-292 


INTRODUCTION 

TO  Tin-] 

TALMUD 

PART  I. 
HISTORICAL  AND  LITKRARV  INTRODUCTION. 


THE  TALMUD  AND  ITS  COMPONENT  PARTS. 

§  1. 

The  Talmud  is  the  work  which  embodies  the  mental  labors 
of  the  ancient  Jewish  teachers  during  a  period  of  about  eig-ht 
hundred  years  (from  about  300  before,  to  500  after,  the  Christian 
era)  in  expounding;  and  developing  the  civil  and  religious  law 
of  the  IVMe.  Besides,  it  contains  the  theosophical  views,  ethical 
maxims  and  exegetical  remarks  of  those  teachers;  it  is  inter- 
woven with  many  valuable  historical  and  ethnographical  records 
and  occasional  references  to  the  different  branches  of  ancient 
knowledge  and  sciences. 

The  Talmud  consists  of  two  distinct  works,  the  Mts/ina,  as 
the  text,  and  the  Gemara  as  a  voluminous  collection  of  com- 
mentaries and  discussions  on  that  text. 

The  appellation  Talmud,  meaning  the  Study,  properly  refers 
to  the  Gemara  only,  but  according  to  a  literary  usage  establish- 
ed m  later  times,  the  name  Talmud  is  applied  also  to  the 
combined  work  of  Mishna  and  Gemara.' 

We  have  two  compilations  of  the  Gemara,  different  from 
each  other  in  language  as  well  as  in  contents.  One  originated 
in  the  Palestinian,  and  the  other  in  the  Babylonian  schools. 
The  latter  is  called  >hl1  "ID^n  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  ^nd  the 
former  *»l2'?tt'Ti''  "nD^n  the  Palestinian  Talmud.  The  Mishna 
text  in  both  of  them  is  the  same,  though  occasionally  offering 
slight  variations. 


'  As  a  technical  term  the  word  lID^n  was  applied  by  the  ancient 
teachers  to  signify  the  method  of  deducing  a  law  from  the  words  of 
Scripture;  compare  the  phrase  "n^  TID^D,  Maccoth  I,  7,  a.  o.  Sub- 
sequently the  word  was  applied  to  the  discussions  of  the  teachers  on 
the  Mishna;  compare  Sanhedrin  34a:  ^32  bt^  mioi^n.  After  the  Mishna 
and  Gemara  had  been  combined  in  one  work,  it  became  customary 
to  use  the  word  as  an  appellation  of  the  whole  work. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE     M  I  S  H  N  A. 

Its  Oeigin,  Compilation  and  Name. 
§2. 

The  Mishna  is  the  authorized  codification  of  the  oral  or  un- 
written law  which,  on  the  basis  of  the  written  law  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch,  developed  during  the  second  Temple  and  down 
to  the  end  of  the  second  century  of  the  common  era. 

The  oral  law  consisted  j^artly  of  legal  traditions  and  usages 
which  had  been  handed  down  from  time  immemorial;  partly  of 
enactments  (□T"'D1  nTi''T:i  nupr)  of  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synod  or  the  Sopherim,  and  subsequently  of  the  Sanhedriu;  and 
partly  of  the  laws  which  proceeded  from  the  discussions  and  de- 
cisions of  the  teachers,  theTanaim,  in  the  Palestinian  academies, 
established  for  the  purpose  of  cultivating  and  transmitting  that 
law.  Its  transmission  was,  for  many  centuries,  confined  to 
verbal  communication,  as  it  was  considered  a  i-eligious  olfonce 
to  reduce  the  tradition  to  writing, » 

The  cultivation  of  that  law  consisted  mainly  in  the  endeavor 
to  found  its  provisions  on  a  biblical  basis  and  support,  and  to 
deduce  therefrom  new  provisions  for  cases  not  yet  provided 
for.  This  endeavor  gave  rise  to  discussions  and  a  frequent  con- 
flict of  opinions.  Also  the  reports  of  these  conflicting  upinions 
were  conscientiously  preserved  in  tlie  memory  of  subsequent 
teachers.  Thus,  in  the  coui'se  of  time,  tlie  subject  matter  oftlie 
oral  law  accumulated  to  an  in)mense  bulk  wliieh,  not  yet  in  any 
way  systeuuiti/ed,  became  almost  too  heavy  to  be  preserved 
merely  by  the  power  of  memory. 

The  first  attempt  towards  bringing  some  order  and  system 
into  this  chaotic  mass  of  traditions  was  madi^  by  Hillel,  president 
of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  time  of  Herod,  by  ai  ranging  it  into  six 
principal   divisions.     His  attempt   was   hitcsr   j-esumed  by   the 

'  In  order  to  assist  their  memory,  however,  some  teachers  had 
private  Hcrolls  on  wliich  they  for  their  own  use  entered  single  theses 
of  the  tr  ditional  hivv.  Such  a  scroll  was  called  D'lDD  D^'JD  "Secret 
Scroll." 


The   Mishna.  5 

celebrated  R.  Akiba  who  subdivided  the  8ul)Jcct  matter  l)elongiii^- 
to  eacli  oi"  tlicsix  divisions,  into  homogeneous  parts.  Within 
eacli  part  again  he  grouped  the  single  laws  according  to  their 
inter-connection  and  according  to  certain  mnemonical  consider- 
ations. The  work  of  R.  Akil)a  was  continued  by  his  distinguish- 
ed disciple  R.  Meir  who  completed  the  collection  and  improved 
its  formal  arrangement.  But  neither  this  compilation  of  R. 
Meir  nor  similar  works  of  his  colleagues  succeeded  in  command- 
ing general  recognition,  as  every  teacher  in  the  various  academies 
preferred  to  transmit  and  expound  the  accumulated  material  of 
the  law  according  to  a  method  and  arrangement  of  his  own. 

Finally  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi,  flourishing  towards  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  undertook  the  great  task  of  estalilishing  a 
general  code  of  the  oral  law.  By  virtue  of  his  eminent  learning, 
his  dignity  •  as  Patriarch  and  as  head  of  a  celebrated  academy, 
he  succeeded  in  accomplishing  this  task.  Taking  the  unfinished 
work  of  R.  Akiba  and  R.  Meir  as  ])asis,  and  retaining,  in  gen- 
eral, its  division  and  arrangement,  he  examined  and  sifted  the 
whole  material  of  the  oral  law,  and  completed  it  by  adding  the 
decisions  which  his  academy  gave  concerning  many  doubtful 
cases.  Unanimously  adopted  opinions  he  recorded  without  the 
names  of  their  authors  or  transmitters,  but  where  a  divergence 
of  opinions  appeared,  the  individual  opinion  is  given  in  the 
name  of  its  author,  together  with  the  decision  of  the  prevailing 
majority,  or  side  by  side  with  that  of  its  opponent,  and  sometimes 
even  with  the  addition  of  short  arguments  pro  and  con. 

Like  the  former  compilations  of  the  oral  law,  this  work  of 
R.  Jehuda  was  called  Mishna.  In  order  to  distinguish  it  from 
that  of  R.  Akiba  and  R.  Meir  it  was  originally  designated  the 
Mishna  of  R.  Jehuda,  but  after  having  l)een  generally  accepted 
as  the  exclusively  authorized  code  of  the  traditional  law,  it  bears 
the  simple  name  Mishna  without  any  further  modification.' 


•  Whetlier  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi  actually  committed  his  Mishna  to 
writing  or  not,  is  a  question  concerning  which  the  scholars  of  ancient 
as  well  as  of  modern  times  express  different  opinions.  In  accordance 
with  the  principle  mentioned  in  Talm.  Gittin  60  b  and  Temura  14  b 
in    the  name  of  some  teachers,    that  the  oral  law  ought  not    to  be 


6  HiSTOEICAL  AND  LiTERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

In  later  years  of  his  life,  R.  Jehuda  revised  his  work,  and 
made  several  changes.  Some  additions  were  made  b}'  his  dis- 
ciples. ' 

Concerning  the  etymology   and   signification   of  the  word 

niw^D   there    is  a  difference  of  opinion.     Some  regard  it  as  a 
t:    • 

feminine  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  n  JIS'D  (analogous  to  the  double 

form  nipO  and  HipQ),  meaning  the  second  in  rank,  hence  a  signi- 

v':  •  T  :  • 

fication  of  the  work  containing  the  oral  law  which  takes  the 

second  rank  compared  with  the  biblical  law;  which  in  considered 

the  first.     In  this  sense  the  word  is  taken  not  only  by  the  fathers 

of  the  Church  who  rendered  it  by  the  tavm  8 EVTEpoo6ii,  but  also  by 

many  modern  scholars.     Others  derive  it  from  the  verb  nitt'  to 

repeat,  which  in  new   Hebrew,    like  the  Aramaic  Sin  received 


written  down  3n33  pDX^  '•Ntjn  nns  'X  HD  bv^^  D^m  it  is  maintained 
by  Sherira  Gaon  (according  to  one  version  in  his  Iggereth),  by  Rashi  in 
his  commentary  on  B.  Metzia  33  a  and  Erubin  62  b,  by  Tosaphoth  on 
Megilia  32  a,  and  by  some  other  authorities  of  the  Middle  Ages  that  R. 
Jehuda  compiled  his  great  Mishna  work  in  his  mind  witliout  writing 
it  down,  and  that  it  was  transmitted  only  orally  during  many  gener 
ations,  until  circumstances  in  the  sixth  century  made  it  neccessary  to 
commit  it  to  writing.  This  view  is  accepted  and  defended  even  by 
some  modern  scholars,  as  Luzzatto,  Rapaport,  Jost,  Graetz,  Leopold 
Loew,  and  others. 

More  plausible  is  the  opposite  opinion  holding  that  R.  Jehuda 
Hanasi  wrote  out  the  Mishna  in  full.  This  opinion  is  shared  in  the 
Middle  Ages  by  Samuel  Hanagid,  R.  Nis^im,  R.  Abraham  b.  David. 
Maimonides,  and  in  modern  times  by  Geiger,  Frankel,  Lebrecht,  I.  H. 
Weiss,  and  others. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  former  opinion  are  found  in 
Graetz'  Geschichte  der  Juden  IV,  second  edition,  p.  494,  and  in 
Leopold  Loew's  Graphischo  Requisiten  II,  pp.  112-182;  the  contrary 
arguments  in  Frankel's  Darke  Hamiachna  p.  211:  Weiss'  Dor  Dor  III, 
344-24S.  Compare  also  Hamburger's  Real-Encycl.  II,  p.  796,  and  S. 
Adler's  Kobetz  al  Yad,  p.  M. 

'  Clear  evidences  of  such  additions  by  later  hands  are  found  in  the 
'ast  Mishna  of  Sota,  where  the  death  of  Rabbi  Is  mentioned,  and  in 
the  last  Mishna  of  Uk'tzin,  where  mention  is  made  of  R.  Joshua  b. 
Levi  who  flourished  after  Rabbi.  As  later  additions  and  interpolations 
must  also  such  passages  as  lOIK  ""m  or  '3i  n3T  be  regarded  which  oc- 
casionally occur  in  the  context  of  the  Mishna,  e.  g.  Nazir  I,  4;  IV, 
5;  Maccoth  I,  8. 


The  Mishna.  7 

the  meaning,  to  relate,  to  teach,  to  transmit  orally.  Mishna  then 
means  the  oral  teachifig,  the  instruction  in  the  traditional  law,  in 
contradistinction  to  S"lpD  the  reading  in  the  written  law  of  the 
Bible. 

The  Division  of  the  Mishna. 
§3. 

The  Mishna  is  divided  into  six  main  sections,  termed  Seda- 
rwi  ("Orders"  or  "Series")'.  A  mnemonical  sign  of  the  sequence 
of  these  sections  arc  the  words  tapJ  ]DT  (time  he  took),  formed 
by  the  initials  of  their  names. 

I.  Zeraim  D''j;"iT  Seeds  or  productions  of  tlie  land.  This 
section  embraces  the  ritual  laws  concerning  the  cultivation  of 
the  soil  and  its  products.  It  is  introduced  by  a  treatise  on 
prayer  and  benedictions. 

II.  Moed  ij;i!2  Festival^  treats  of  the  laws  concerning  the 
Sabbath  and  all  festivals. 

III.  Nashijn  Cti'J  IVomen,  regulations  concerning  marriage 
and  divorce. 

lY.  Nezikhi  pp'^Ti  Z>rt!w<zo-<'^,  embracing  a  great  part  of  the 
civil  and  criminal  law. 

V,  Kodashim  D'^tt'Tp  Sacred  things,  treats  of  the  sacrificial 
laws  and  the  temple  service. 

VI.  Teharoth  minlD  Purification,  the  laws  concerning  the 
clean  and  unclean. 

Eacli  Seder  (section)  is  subdivided  into  Mascchtoth  or  treat- 
ises, of  which  each  bears  a  name  indicating  its  general  con- 
tents ^ 

The  Mishna  contains  in  all  sixty  three  Mascchtoth.  Each 
Masechta  is  again  subdivided  into  Chapters,  called  Perakim,  and 
each  Perek  into  paragraphs,  of  which  each  is  termed  Mishna  or 

>  On  account  of  this  division  of  the  Mishna  into  six  series  the  wliole 
Tjilmud  is  signified  by  the  technical  term  DK*  whicli  is  an  abbreviation 
of  the  words  D^IID  iltrtJ'. 

*  The  vrord  nSDO  or  NDDDO  is  probably  derived  from  -|DJ  to 
weave,  and  means  then  a  web,  just  as  in  Latin  textus  from  texere, 
means  a  web,  and  then  a  composition  of  words  and  sentences. 


8  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Halacha.     The  latter  term  lor  a  single  paragraph  i.s  especially 
used  in  the  Palestinian  Talmud. 


Order  of  Succession,  Names  and  (Jeneral  Contents  of 
the  Masechtoth. 

§  i- 

Concerning  the  order  in  which  the  Masechtoth  belonging  to 
every  section  follow  after  each  other,  some  difference  appears 
between  the  separate  Mislma  edition  (called  Misimaj^oth  m'':)tya)' 
and  the  arrangement  of  the  Masechtoth  as  generally  adopted  in 
the  editions  of  the  Balnionian  and  the  Palestinian  Talmnd. 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  the  Scdarim  II — VI,  while  in  Seder 
I  the  order  of  succession  is  the  same  in  all  editions. 


•  Maimonides  in  the  introduction  to  liis  Mishna  commentary 
endea\ors  to  find  some  reasons  for  the  order  of  succession  of  the 
Masechtoth  in  each  Seder.  But  his  reasons  are  often  rather  forced.  R. 
Sherira  Gaon,  in  his  celebrated  epistle  holds  that  the  compiler  of  tlie 
Mishna  did  not  have  the  intention  to  arrange  the  Masechtoth  a <;cording 
to  a  strictlj'^  systematical  oi"der.  This  opinion  is  also  expressed  in  the 
Gemara  B.  Kamma  102  a;  Aboda  Zara  7a  :  mriDDO  nni  njti'D^  mo  pN; 
though,  on  the  other  liand,  the  Gemara  sometimes  refers  to  a  close 
connection  of  one  Masechta  with  the  preceding  one,  as  in  tlie  beginn- 
ing of  Masecheth  Sota  :  ntSID  NJn  D"D  p'^D  in^O  S*3n  nDD;  comp. 
also  the  beginning  of  Mas.  Shebuoth  and  of  Taanith. 

Geiger  (Wissenschaftliche  Zeitsclirift  II,  p.  487  ss.)  sIkjws  that  in 
the  separate  Mishna  edition,  at  least  in  the  Sedarun  II — VI,  the  Ma- 
sechtoth are  siinjily  arranged  according  to  the  number  of  P(>ri\kim  of 
which  they  consist,  so  that  the  Maseclitoth  having  tlie  greater  number 
stand  first  and  are  gi'aduaily  followed  by  those  having  a  lesser  number 
of  Perakim.  Where  tlie  arrangement  seemingly  deviates  from  this 
rule,  we  can  easily  account  for  tlie  deviation.  Tims  tlu'  three  Baban, 
each  having  ten  Perakim,  are  placed  first  in  Seder  Nezikin,  because  be- 
longing together  and  having  in  all  thirty  Perakim.  They  are  followed 
by  Sanhedrin  having  eleven  Perakim,  and  then  by  Maccoth  which 
though  consisting  only  of  three  Perakim  is  in  its  contents  a  continua- 
tion of  the  subject  treated  in  Sanhedriji,  forming  with  it  fourteen  Pe- 
ru i\im. 


The  Mtshna.  9 

The  following  is  a  full  list  of  the  Maseehtoth  belonging  to 
each  Seder  and  the  nuinlier  of  their  Pcrakim;  besides  the  order 
of  their  succession  in  the  separate  Mishna  edition  as  well  as  in 
the  two  compilations  of  the  Talmud. 

The  letter  Gr  added  to  the  number  of  the  order  of  succession 
in  this  list  indicates  that  there  is  Gemara  to  that  Masechta  in 
either  of  the  two  Talmud  compilations. 

I.     Seder  Zeraim,  containing  eleven  Maseehtoth. 

Order  of  Succession  in  the 

Separate        TALMUD  ^,      , 

Mishna     „  ,  ,.    t         i    i„-  Number 

edition.  Babh.  Jerushalnii.  „f  perakim 

1  l.G.       l.G.     Bei'achoth,  r\'\'D12.  Benedictions  or  Prayers,      9 

treats  of  liturgical  rules. 

2  2  2.G.     Pea/i,  nSD,  Corner,  treats  of  tlie  coi-ners  and      8 
•  gleanings  of  the  field,  the  forgotten  sheaves, 

the  olives  and  grapes  to  be  left  to  the  poor, 
according  to  Levit.  XIX  9.10  and  Deut.  XXIV 
19.  31. 

3  3  3.G.     -Demai,  'KJon,  The  Uncertain,  treats  of  corn      7 

bought  from  persons  suspected  for  not  hav- 
ing given  thereof  the  tithes. 

4  4  4.G.     Khilmjim,Q'<ii^'2,  Mixtures,  treats  of  the  pro-      9 

hibited  mixtures  in  plants,  animals  and  gar- 
ments, according  to  Levit.  XIX,  19  ;  Deutr. 
XXII,  9  11. 

5  5  5.G.     Shebiith,  r\^]}''2'C%   The  Sabbatical    year,    ac-     10 

cording  to  Ex.  XXIII,  11;  Lev.  XXV,  2-7; 
Deutr.  XV,  1-11. 

6  6  6.G.     r/iem?Hof/i,  niDlin,  The  Heave  offerings  for    11 

the  priests,  according  to  Numb.    XVIII,  13. 

7  7  7.G.     Maaseroth,  nilC'yO,  The  Tithes,  to  be  given       5 

.  to  the  Levites,    according  to  Lev.   XXVII, 
30-33;  Num.  XVIII,  21-24. 

8  8  8.G.     Maaser  Shnii,  "^i^  -lC^>yo,  The  second  Tithe,      5 

according  to  Dent.  XIV,  22-36. 

9  9  'J,(;.     Challa,  nbn,  Thti  Dough,  the  portion  to  be      4 

given  thereof  to  the  Priests,  according  to 
Num.  XV,  20.  21. 
10      10  lO.G.     Orla,  nbiy^  The   Uncircumcised,  treats  of      3 

the  fruits  of  a  tree  during  the  fir-st  four 
years  after  its  planting,  according  to  Lev. 
XIX,  23-25. 


10  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Order  of  Succession  in  the 

Separate        TALMUD  ..      ^ 

Mishna    „  l.-    t         l   i    •  Number 

edition.    P'^Wi.  Jerushalmi.  of  Perakim 

11      11  ll.G.     Biceurim,    Dn"133,    The    First  fruits  to  be      3 

brought  to  the  Temple,  according  to  Deut. 
XXVI,  1-11. 

il.     Seder  Moed,  containing  twelve  Masechtoth. 

1  l.G.       l.G.     -S'ab&af/i,  n2C/ treats  of  the  labors  prohibit-    24 

ed  on  that  da}'. 

2  2.G.      2.G.     Eruhin,  imiy^  Combinations.  This  Masechta    10 

being  a  continuation  of  the  preceding,  treats 
especially  of  imaginary  combinations  of  loc- 
alities by  which  to  extend  the  Sabbath 
boundary. 

3  3.G.      3.G.     Pesachim,  DTIDS;  treats  of  the  laws  relating     10 

to  the  feast  of  Passover  and  the  paschal  lamb. 

4  11  5.G.     Shekalim,  W^pnf,  treats  of  the  half  Shekel      8 

which,  according  to  Ex.  XXX,  12-16,  every 
Israelite  had  to  pay  as  a  temple  tax. 

5  8.G.       4.G.     Yoma,    NOV,  the  Day,  i.  e.  the  day  of  At-      8 

onement,  according  to  Lev.  XVI,  3-34. 

6  9.G.       6.(t.     Succah,  n21D»  treats  of  the  laws  concerning      8 

the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  Lev.  XXIII,  34-36. 

7  4.G.       8.G.     Betza  n\^2  or  Yarn  tov  2113  DV,  treats  of  the      5 

kinds  of  work  which,  according  to  Ex.  XII, 
16,  were  prohibited  or  permitted  on  the  fes- 
tivals. The  name  Betza  (the  egg)  is  taken 
from  the  first  word  in  that  Masechta. 

8  7.G.       7.G.    RohIi  Hashana,  nJtiTI  t^XI,  Beginning  of  the      4 

year,  treats  of  the  feast  of  New  Year. 

9  lO.G.       9.G.     jTartn?//;,  n^jyn,  on  the  public  fasts.  4 

10  12.G.      10. G.     ilff'f/iV/r/,  n^':a  the  Scroll,  treats  of  the  road-      4 

ing  of  the  book  of  Esther  on  the  feast  of 
Purim. 

11  5.G.     12.G.     Mbed  J?af on,  JO pnyin,  Minor  feast,  treats  of      3 

laws  relating  to  tae  days  intervening  be- 
tween the  first  and  last  days  of  Pcsach  and 
Succoth. 

12  6.G.     11. (J.     C'linfiuja,  nj'jn,  Feast  offering,  treats  of  tlie      3 

private  offerings  on  the  three  f«^asts  of  pil- 
grimage, according  to  Dout.  XVI,  16.  17. 

HI.     Si;i)ER  Nashim,  containing  seven  Mascchtotli. 

1         l.G.       l.G.      Yebdvioth,    ri1D3\  Sislers-in-Ijaw,  treats  of     16 
Tvcvirate  mai'irage,  according  to  Deut.  XXV, 
5-10. 


The   Mishna.  11 

Order  of  Succession  in  the 

Separate       TALMUD  „      , 

Mishna    „  ^,.    ,        ,    ,    .  Number 

edition.  Babh.  Jerushalmi.  of  Perakim 

2  2.G.      3.G.     Khethuboth,  nnin3>   Marriage  deeds,  treats    13 

of  dower  and  marriage  settlementt*. 

3  5.G.      4.G.    Nedarim,  D^IIJ,  Vows,  treats  of  vows   and     11 

their  annulment,  with  reference  to  Num. 
XXX,  3-16. 

4  6.G.      6.G.     Nazir,  -i'>tj,  the  Nazarite,  treats  of  the  laws      9 

concerning  him,  according  to  Num.  VI,  2-21. 
.5        7.G.      2.G.     Sota,  ntilD?  on  the  woman  suspected  of  adult-    9 
ery,  according   to  Num.  V,  12-31. 

6  4.G.      5.G.     Gittin,  pD''J,  on  Divorces,    based  on  Deut.      9 

XXIV,  1-5. 

7  3.G.      7.G.     Kiddushin,  j'EJ'np,  on  Betrothals.  4 

IV.     Seder  Nezikin,  containing  ten  Masechtoth. 

1        l.G.       l.G.     B aha  Kama,  Nop  S33/   First  Gate,  treats  of     10 
Damages  and  Injuries,   and  their  remedies, 
with  reference  to   Ex.  XXI,  28-37  ;   XXII, 
1-5. 

3  2.G.  2.G.  Baba  Metzia,  N^VD  ^'^2»  Middle  Gate,  10 
treats  of  laws  concerning  found  property 
(Deut.  XXII,  1-4),  concerning  trust  (Ex. 
XXII,  6-14 ),  concerning  buying  and  selling 
(Lev.  XXV,  14),  lending  (Ex.  XXII,  24-26; 
Lev.  XXV,  35-37}  and  concerning  hiring 
and  renting. 

3  3,G.      3.G.     Baba  Bathra,  N")n3  X33,  Last  Gate,    treats     10 

of  laws  concerning  real  estate  and  com- 
merce, mostly  based  on  the  traditional  law; 
besides  of  the  laws  concerning  hereditary 
succession,  based  on  Num.  XXVII,  7-11. 

4  5.G.      4.G.     Sanhedrin,  p-nn3D;  treats  of  the  courts  and     11 

their  proceedings,  and  of  the  punishment 
of  capital  crimes. 

5  7.G.      5.G.    Maccoth,   ni3D,  Stripes,  treats  of  false  wifc-      3 

nesses  and  their  punishment  (Deut.  XIX, 
16-19);  of  the  cities  of  refuge  (Num.  XXXV, 
10-32;  Deut.  XIX,  1-13)  and  of  crimes  pun- 
ished by  stripes  (Deut.  XXV,  1-3. 

6  6.G.      6.G.     S/i(?6»of7i,  niJ/Uti'r  Oaths,  treats  of  the  differ-   S 

ent  kinds  of  oaths,  those  made  in  private 
life  as  well  as  those  administered  in  court, 
Lev.  V,  4.  5.  21.  22;  Ex.  XXII,  6-10. 


12  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction, 

Order  of  Succession  in  the 

Separate       TALMUD  .,      ^ 

Mishna    „  ,  ,     ,        ,    ,     •  Number 

edition.  '^^'''  •  Jerushalmi.  of  Perakim 

7  8     Wanting  Eduyoth,  ni^y,  Testimonies,  contains  a,  col-      8 

lection  of  traditional  laws  and  decisions 
gathered  from  the  testimonies  of  disting- 
uished teachers. 

8  4.G.      7.G.     Aboda  Zara,   mT  ntuy,    Idolatry,  treats  of      H 

laws  concerning  idols  and  the  relation  to 
the  worshipers  thereof. 

9  10    Wanting  Aboth,  nUN,  Fathers  or   Sentences  of  the      5 

Fathers   (tlie   principal  teachers),    contains 
ethical  maxims  of  the  Mishna  teachers. 
10        9.G.      8.G.     Horayoth,   nVIIH,  Decisions,    treats  of    the      3 
consequences  of  acting  according  to  errone- 
ous decisions  rendered  by  areligious  author- 
ity, with  reference  to  Lev.  chapters  IV  and  V. 

V.     Sp:der  Kodashim,  containing  eleven  Mascchtoth. 

1  l.G.  Zebachim,    DTIQT;  Sacrifices,    treats  of  the     14 

animal  sacrifices  and  the  mode  of  their  of- 
fering, with  reference  to  the  first  chapters  of 
Leviticus. 

2  2.(t.       o         Menachotli,  nin^D,  Meat-ofl'ering,   treats  of     13 

meat-and  drink  offerings,  with  reference  to 
vc  Lev.  ch.II 

3  4.G.  Cliolin,  (or   CJhuUin)  p^in,   I'rofane   things,     12 

"-■  treats  of  the  traditional  manner  of  slaught- 

ering animals  for  ordinary  n.se;  besides  of 
-^  the  dietary  laws. 

4  'i.e.  Bechorofh,  rrniDS,  Tlie  fust  born,   treats  of      9 

•^  (lie  laws  concerning  tlie   first   born  of  man 

and  animals,    according  to  Ex.   VIII,  12.13 
<3  and  Num.  XVIII,  15-17. 

5  5.r!.  Arachiu,  p3"iy,    P]stimations,  treats  of  the      9 

:?  mode  in  which  persons  or   things  dedicated 

to  the  Lord  by  a  vow  are  legally  a])praised    ' 
in  oi'der  to  be  redeemed   for  ordinaiy  use, 
according  to  Lev.  XXVII,  2-27. 

6  0.(ji.  Themnra,  miorif    Exchange,  treats  of  the      7 

laws  concerning  sanctified  things  having 
been  exchanged,  .'iccording  to  Lev.  XXVII, 
10-27. 

7  7.U.  Kherithnth,  n1n''^D,  Excisions,  treats  of  the      G 

sins  subject  to  the  punishment  of  excision, 
and  their  expiation  by  sacrifices. 


The  Mishna.  13 

Older  of  Succession  in  the  • 

Separate         TALMUD  „      , 

Mishna  Number 

edition.  Babh.Jerushalmi.  of  Perakim 

8  8.G.  Mc.-ila,  rib"'y?D.  Trespass  (Sacrilege),  treats  of      (J 

the   sins  of    violating  or   profaning   sacred 
^  things,  according  to  Lev.  V,  15.  16. 

9  10. ri.     ;?;  37i«//«V?,  TiOn,  The  Daily  Sacrifice,  describes      7 

the  Temple  service  connected  with  the  daily 
'"'  morning  and  evening  offering,  according  to 

H  Ex.  XXIX,  88-4] ;  Num.  XXVIII,  2-8. 

10  11.         i^<  Middoth,  T\Y\12,  Measurements,  contains  the      5 

<  measurements     and     description     of     the 
•S           Temple,  its  courts,  gates  and  halls,  also  de- 
scription of  the  service  of  the  priestly  guards 
in  the  Temple. 

11  9.  *        Kinnint,    D'Jp/    The   bird's   nests,    treats  of      3 

the  sacrifices  consisting  of  fowls,  the  offer- 
ing of  the  poor,  according  to  Lev.  I,  14;  V, 
7;  XII,  8. 

VJ.     Sedek  Teharoth,  contaiiiiiig  twelve  Masechtoth. 

1  2.  Klu'Uin,   wb^i   Vessels,    treats  of  the    con-    30 

ditions  under  which  domestic  utensils,  gar- 
ments etc.   receive  ritual  uncleanness,  ac- 
2j  cording  to  Lev.  XI,  33-35. 

2  3.  Ohaloth,  nPHN,  Tents,  treats  of  tents  and     18 

^  houses  conveying  the  ritual  uncleanness  of 

a  dead  body,  according  to  Num.  XIX,  14.15. 
8        4.         w  Nega-im.    Q'J?JJ,   Leprosy,  treats  of  the  laws     14 

relating  to  lejjrosy  of  men,    garments   and 

^  dwellings,  according  to  Lev.  XIII  and  XIV. 

4  5.  Parah,  n"l3.  The  Heifer,   treats  of  the  laws     13 

izi  concerning  the  red  heifer  and  the  use  of  its 

ashes  for  the    purification  of  the  unclean, 

<  according  to  Num.  XIX. 

5  6.  Teharoth,  minCD,  Purifications.     The   word     10 

■s  is  here  used  euphemistically,  as  the  Masech- 

ta  treats  of  some  lesser  degrees  of  unclean- 
ness lasting  only  till  sunset;  e.g.,  Lev.  XI, 
34-28. 

6  7.  Mikvaoth,  niNlpO,  Wells,  treats  of  the  con-     10 

ditions  vmder  which  wells  and  reservoirs 
are  tit  to  be  used  for  ritual  purifications^ 

7  l.G.      l.G.     Mdda,   mj,  The  Menstruous,  treats  of  the     10 

legal  uncleanness  arising  from  certain  con- 
ditions  in    women,  according  to   Lev.  XV, 


14  HlSTOEICAT.  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

Order  of  Succession  in  the  • 

mC        TALMUD  Number 

edition.  Babli.Jerushalmi.  of  Perakim 

19-31  and  XII,  2-8. 

8  8.  Mach-shirin,  ]n'B'30,  Preparations,  treats  of      G 

liquids  that,   according  to  Lev.  XI,  34.  38, 
25  prepare  and  dispose  seeds  and  fruits  to  re- 

ceive ritual  uncleanness. 

9  9,  ;?;  Zabim,  W2h  Persons  suffering  of  running      5 

issues,   treats    of  the    uncleanness    arising 
M  from  such  secretions,  according  to  Lev.  XV, 

2-18. 

10  10.         H  Tebul  Yom,  DV  b'\2V),  Immersed  at  day  time,      4 

treats  of  the  state  of  Iiim  who  at  day  time 
^  immersed  for  his  pux-ification,  wjiiie  his  per- 

fect cleanness  according  to  the  law  is  not 
•*!  acquired  before  the  setting  of  the  sun. 

11  11  Yadayim,  D''n\  Hands,  treats  of  the  ritual      4 

^  uncleanness  of  hands,  according  to  the  trad- 

itional law,  and  of  their  purification. 

12  12  .  Uk-tzin,  pvpiy,  Stalks  of   Fruit,   treats  of       3 

stalks  and  shells  of  fruit  in  regard  to  con- 
veying ritual  uncleanness. 

Remark!.  In  connection  with  the  main  subject  treated 
in  each  Masechta  and  generally  indicated  in  its  name,  occasion- 
ally other  more  or  less  congenial  subjects  are  treated.  Thus, 
for  instance,  the  last  Perakim  of  Masecheth  Megilla  are  devoted 
to  laws  cmicei-ning  the  sanctity  of  synagogues  and  the  reading 
of  Scrijjtures  at  the  public  service.  In  the  first  Perek  of  Kid- 
dusliin,  after  having  set  forth  the  different  modes  of  contracting 
marriage,  rules  are  incidently  laid  down  concerning  the  legal 
mf)des  of  acquiring  dilferentkinds  of  property,  etc. 

Remark  2.  The  Perakim  belonging  to  each  Masechta 
are  designated  in  the  separate  Mishna  edition  siuiply  by  the 
letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and  in  tlie  Tahnud  edition  by 
ordinal  numbers  as  well  as  by  a  certain  name  taken  from  the  first 
word  or  words  with  which  that  Perek  begins.  Thus  the  first 
Perek  of  JJcruchoth  is  designated  in  the  separate  Mishna  edition 
by  'H  pns  and  in  the  Talmud  edition  by  piysn  pns,  "TiDSD.  lu 
earlier  rabbinical  literature  refercmces  to  a  certain  Perek  of  the 
Mishna  are  generally  made  by  giving  only  the  name  of  that 
Perek  without  stating  the   Masechta  to  whieh  it  belongs,  as 


The  Mishna.  15 

T'DSDH  p"'iS  referring  to  the  third  Perek  of  Baba  Metzia.  An 
alphabetical  list  of  the  names  of  all  Parakim  with  the  indication 
of  the  Masechteth  to  which  they  belong  is  found  in  the  appendix 
to  Masechoth  Berachoth  in  the  Talmud  editions,  innnediately 
after  Maimonides'  Introduction  to  Seder  Zeraim. 

Language  op  the  Mishna. 

The  language  of  the  Mishna  is  New  Hebrew,  as  developed 
during  the  period  of  the  second  Teiiiple.  Tlie  Hebrew  having 
been  supplanted  by  the  Aramaic  dialects  as  the  language  of 
common  life,  the  ancient  idiom  was  cultivated  by  the  learned 
for  liturgical  and  legal  purposes.  Many  new  words  and  phrases 
had  to  be  coined  to  express  new  ideas  andoljjects,  and  new 
grammatical  forms  and  syntactical  constructions  adopted  for 
the  favored  processes  of  legal  dialectics.  As  far  as  possible 
use  was  made  for  this  purpose  of  new  derivations  of  the  stock 
of  Biblical  words  and  of  some  genuine  Hebrew  roots  which 
thougli  not  happening  to  occur  in  the  Biblical  literature  still 
lingered  in  the  memory  of  the  people.  Besides,  recourse  was 
had  to  the  dominating  languages.  From  the  Aramaic  especially 
some  word  roots  and  grammatical  inflections,  derivations  and 
constructions  were  borrowed  and  modified  according  to  the 
genius  of  the  Hebrew  idiom.  Utensils  and  other  objects  and 
ideas  till  then  unknown  were  designated  by  the  same  terms, 
used  by  that  nation  from  which  they  had  been  borrowed.  In 
this  way,  many  Greek  terms  and  with  them  also  some  Latin 
words  more  or  less  modified,  were  adopted  and  naturalized,  i 


*    Modern  works  on  the  language  of  the  Mishna  are: 

M.  I.  Landau,  (ieist  und  Sprache  der  Hebraer  nach  dem  zweiten 
Tenipelbau  (Prague  1833). 

A,  Geiger.  Lehr-und  Lesebuch  zur  Sprache  der  Mislma  (Breslau, 
1845). 

L.  Dukes,  Sprache  der  Mishna  (Esslingen,  1845). 

J.  H.  Weiss,  Mishpat  Leshon  ha-Mishna  (Vienna  1867). 

Herm.  L.  Strack  und  C.  Siegfried,  Lehrbuch  der  neuhebraeischen 

Sprache  und  Literatur,  Karlsruhe  und  Leipzig,  1884. 

Salomon  Stein,  Das  Verbuin  der  Mischnasprache,  Berlin  1888. 


16  .      HiSTOEICAL  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

In  this  New  IIe])rew  language,  also  called  the  huignage  of 
the  sages  (□"»;2m  ]''^b  or  p--,-:  SjD'^),  are  composed  not  only  the 
Mishna  but  also  tlie  kindred  works  to  be  mentioned  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapter. 

As  to  the  stj'leof  expression,  the  ^[ishna  is  very  brief  and 
concise  well  calculated  to  impress  itself  upon  the  memory- 


CHAPTER  II. 

WORKS      KINDRED  TO  THE  MISHNA. 

§6. 

Tliere  are  several  works  which  are  kindred  to  the  contentis 
of  the  Mishna,  and  originated  partly  before  and  partly  after  its 
clos(!,  though  their  present  shape  belongs  to  a  much  later  period. 
We  refer  to  the  Tosephta^  the  Mechilta^  Siphra  and  Siphrc. 
Tiiose  works  are  very  important  from  the  fact  that  they  throw 
much  light  on  the  Mishna  in  revealing  the  sources  of  many  of 
Its  canons,  and  the  reasons  of  its  diverging  opinions.  For  this 
purpose,  they  are  frequently  quoted  in  the  Gemara.  The  follow- 
ing will  briefly  describe  each  of  these  works. 

a.     The  Tosephta. 

The  Avord  Tosephta  (SnSDin)  means  Addition,  Supplement, 
and,  as  indicated  by  this  name,  the  work  is  intended  to  complete 
deficiencies  of  the  Mishna,  It  is  divided  into  Masechtoth,  gene- 
rally corresponding  to  those  of  the  Mischna,  but  differing  from 
them  in  the  arrangement  of  their  subject,  and  in  the  division  of 
their  Perakim.  The  latter  are  not  subdivided  into  paragraphs. 
There  are  in  all  sixty  Masechtoth  and  452  Perakim.  The  Tosephta 
contains  mainly  the  remnants  of  the  earlier  compilations  of  the 
Halacha  made  by  R.  Akiba,  R.  Meir,  R.  Nehemia,  and  others  not 
adopted  in  the  Mishna,  and,  besides,  additions  made,  after  R. 
Jelmda  Hanasi's  death,  by  his  desciples  R.  Chiya,  R.Oshaya,  Bar 
Kappara  and  others.  But  we  find  in  that  work  also  many  sayings 
and  decisions  of  later  Amoraim  of  the  Babylonian  and  Palestin- 
ian schools.  In  its  present  shape  it  belongs  to  the  fifth  or 
sixth  century.' 


'  The  Tosephta  is  usually  printed  as  an  appendix  to  Alphasi's  com- 
pendium of  the  Talmud.  In  the  Vienna  edition  of  the  Eabyl.  Talmud 
(1860-72)  the  Masechtoth  of  the  Tosephta  are  appended  to  the  corres- 
ponding Mosechtoth  of  the  Talmud.  A  separate  revised  edition  of  the 
whole  Tosephta  was  published  by  Dr.  Zuckermandel  (Pasewalk  and 
Treves,  1877-82).  Dr.  Adolph  Schwartz  is  publishing  a  new  edition  of  the 


18  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

b.     The  Mechilta. 
§  8. 

The  Mechilta,  the  Siphra  and  the  Siphre  have  this  in  com- 
inon,  that  they  treat  of  the  oral  law  not  according  to  well  arrang- 
ed subjects,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Mishna  and  the  Tosephta, 
but  rather  in  the  form  of  a  running  commentar}-  and  discussion 
on  the  biblical  passages  from  which  the  law  is  deduced  or  on 
which  it  is  based. 

The  term  Mechilta  (t<n'?''D!3),  being  the  Aramaic  equivalent 
of  the  Hebrew  word  ""0,  means  originally  "Measure",butinthe 
rabbinical  language  it  signifies  the  method  of  the  traditional  in- 
terjirctation  (Midrash),  and  then  a  collection  of  interpretations 
of  the  law. 

The  work  bearing  that  particular  name  contains  a  collec- 
tion of  rabbinical  interpretations  on  several  sections  of  the  second 
])ook  of  Moses;  beginning  with  Ex.  ch.  XII,  1,  it  goes  on  tillch. 
XXIII,  19.  Of  the  remaining  chapters  it  comments  only  on 
XXXI,   12-n  and  on  XXXV,  1-3. 

Though  principally  of  a  legal  character  (Midrash  Halacha), 
it  has  also  homiletical  interpretations  (Midrash  Agada), 
especially  on  Ex.  XIII,  It-XIX,  25. 

The  Mechilta  is  divided  into  niiu;  main  sections  (Masechtoth), 
named  according  to  the  contents  of  the  Bible  passage  which  they 
expound,  as  snDSl  J12CC/  n^w3T  'DI2  etc.  Each  Masechta  is 
subdivided  into  chapters  (Parashoth),  the  total  number  of  which 
is  77. 

Passages  from  the  Mechilta  are  occasionally  quoted  in  the 
TalniiKl,  without  however  mentioning  the  name  of  that  book. 
In  the  post-Talmudic  literature  it  is  mentioned  as  'n  sn'^'^SD 
'?Sy2"2'V     Some    were  therefore  inclined  to  regard  R.  Ishmael 


Tosephta  with  notes  an<l  text  corrections,  of  which  tlie  first   volume 
is  out,  Wihia  1891. 

Criti(;<il  researches  on  the  Tosephta  are  found  in  Frankl's  Darke 
Hainishna  pp.  804-307  and  in  I.  H.Weiss',  Dor  Dor  etc.  II  pp.  217-225  ; 
alsf)  in  I.  H.  Duenner's  Wesen  and  Ursprung  der  Tosephta,  Amster- 
daiu   1H74. 


^yOI{KR  KIXDRKD  TO  THE    MiSFINA  19 

(lloiirishiiig  in  the  beginning  ol' the  second  century)  as  its  author; 
but  against  this  opinion  speaks  the  circumstance  that  the  names 
of  teachers  living  much  later  are  mentioned  in  the  book.  Modern 
scholars  hold  that  the  Mechilta  was  originally  a  collection  of 
teachings  of  R.  Ishmael  and  his  school.  This  collection  having 
been  brought  from  Palestine  to  Bal)ylon, received  there  many  in- 
terpolations. In  the  form  we  possess  it,  the  book  belongs  to  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century.' 

c.     The  Stphra. 

§  9. 

The  Siphra  (SiEC  i.  e.  the  book),  also  called  Torath  Coha- 
nim,  is  a  collection  of  traditional  interpretations  of  the  whole 
book  of  Leviticus,  introduced  by  an  exposition  of  R.  Ishmael's 
thirteen  hermeneutic  rules. 

Different  from  the  Mechilta,  the  style  of  the  Sii)]ira  is  gen- 
erally more  argumentative,  defending  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tions against  possible  objections.  Both  names  of  this  book  are 
mentioned,  and  numerous  passages  thereof  are  quoted,  in  the 
Talmud.  The  authorship  of  its  essential  parts  is  there  ascribed 
to  R.  Jehuda  b.  Ilai,  a  disciple  of  R.  Akiba  (min"'  "\  S'lSD  Dnc 
Sanhed.  86),  and  according  to  this  statementthe  collection  origin- 
ated in  Palestine  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Rutin 
the  course  of  time  it  was  considei-ably  increased  by  additions 
from  the  hands  of  later  teachers,  especially  those  belonging  to 
the  school  of  Abba  Areca  and  is  therefore  also  called  3"i''21S1£D-'' 

As  before  us,  the  book  has  two  different  divisions  which  are 


>  The  latest  editions  of  the  Mecliilta  with  critical  introductions 
and  annotations  were  published  by  I.  H.  Weiss  (Vienna  1885)  and  by 
M.  Friedmann  (Vienna  1870.) 

Critical  researches  on  the  Mechilta  are  also  found  in  Franlvel's 
Monatschrift  1853,  pp.  388  398,  and  Geiger's  Urschrift  pp.  140,  152  sqq. 
and  in  his  Zeitung  1871  pp.  8-38.     I.  H.  Weiss  Dor  Dor  II,  pp.  225-231. 

"  The  latest  edition  of  the  Siphra  with  the  commentary  of  R 
Abraham  b.  David  of  Posquieres  (Rabed)  and  annotations  by  I  H. 
Weiss  was  published  Vienna  1862. 

As  to  critical  researches  on  the  Siphra,  see  Frankel,  Monatsschrift 
1854  and  I.  H.  Weiss,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Siphra,  and  in  his  Dor 
Dor  II  p.  231-236. 


20  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

rather  bewildering,  one  according  to  the  customary  Sabbath 
lessons,  Parashoth,  subdivided  into  Perakim;  the  other  according 
to  sections  named  after  their  main  contci  ts  and  subdivided  into 
chapters  termed  Parasha  or  Parashata. 

d.     The  Siphre. 
§  10. 

The  Siphre,  or,  as  its  luller  title  reads,  2"i  ''3T  ''^SD  (the 
books  of  the  school  of  Rab),  comprises  the  traditional  interpret- 
ations of  the  book  of  Numbers,  beginning  witli  chapter  V,  and 
of  the  whole  book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  author  of  the  Siphre  on 
Numbers  was  evidently  not  the  same  as  the  author  of  that  on  the 
last  book  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  style  of  the  former,  being  more 
argumentative  and  discoursive,  often  resembles  that  of  the  Siphra, 
while  Siphre  on  Deuteronomy  is  generally  brief,  bearing  more 
resemblance  to  the  Mechilta.  The  passages  anonymously  given 
in  the  Siphre  are  ascribed  in  the  Talmud  to  R.- Simon  b.  Jochai, 
one  of  the  distinguished  disciples  ofR.  Akiba  (jlj;ott'  '"i"'nSD  DHD 
Sanhcdrin  86a);  but,  as,  on  the  one  hand,  many  of  those  passages 
can  be  traced  back  to  the  school  of  R.  Ishmael,and,  on  the  other 
hand,  teachers  of  a  much  later  period  are  mentioned  therein, 
it  is  the  opinion  of  modern  scholars  that  the  Siphre  before  us  is 
a  (composite  of  two  ditferent  works  which,  like  the  Siphra,  receiv- 
ed its  present  shape  in  the  Babylonian  shools  founded  l)y  Abba 
Ai'cca. 

The  Siphre  is  divided  into  sections  corresponding  to  those 
ofllic  Sabbath  lessons  and  subdivided  into  paragraphs,  termed 
I'iskolli.  That  on  Numbers  lias  161,  and  that  on  Deuterenomy 
:]o7  Piskoth.' 

c.      Hahaitha. 
§  11- 

Hesides  the  Tosephta,  the  Mechilta,  the  Siphra  and  the 
Sij)hrc  just  describod,  otlicr  collcH'tions  of  a  similar  character 
existed    during   tlu;  Talimidical  jxu-iod.     In  the  course  ol"  time 


'     The  latest  edition   "ftyie   Siplire  with  annotatioiiH  is  that  of  M. 
Friedmann,  Vienna  1864. 


Works  kindrkd  to  the  Mishna.  21 

they  perisliod,  but  many  hundred  fragmentary  passages  thereof 
are  quoted   in  all  parts  of  the  Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Ge- 
mara.  Such  a  passage  quoted  from  those  lost  collections  as  well 
as  from  the  Tosephta,  Mechilta,  Siphra  and  Siphre  was  termed 
Baraitha  (fr<n''"'12),  or  Mathnitha  Baraitha^  meaning  an  extrane- 
ous Mishna.     This  term  was   used  in  order  to  distinguish  those 
passages  from  passages,  in  our  Mishna^    that  is,  the  authorized 
Mishna  of  R.  Jeliuda  Hanasi,    compared  with  which  they  had 
])ut  a  subordinate  value.     The  Baraithoth  are  often  found  to  be 
conflicting  with  each  other  or  with  the  authorized   Mishna,  and 
in  this  case   the  Gemara  usually  displays,    great  ingenuity  and 
subtility  in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  them.     In  some  instances, 
however,  one  or  the  other  Baraitha  is  declared  to  be  spurious,  i 


'     Some  critical  researches  on  the  Baraitha  are  found  in  Frankel's 
Darke  Hamishna  p.  311-313,  and  in  I.  H.  Weiss,  Dor  Dor  II  p.  239-244. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  AUTHORITIES  OF  THE  MISHNA. 

§  !-'• 

The  autlioritics  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha  as 
having  transmitted  and  developed  the  oral  law  belong  to  three 
diflerent  periods,  namely: 

1.  Tlie  i)eriod  o\'  Sophcrifi? 

2.  T\\c  \)Qv\o{\  o)^  Zugof/i,  and 

3.  The  peri(_)d  of  Tanaim. 

a.  Soi)herim  or  scribes  were  the  learned  men  who  succeed- 
ed Ezra  during  a  period  of  about  two  hundred  years.  To  them 
many  institutions  and  extensions  of  the  Mosaic  law  are  ascribed 
□"'1D1D  "'IZT  ,D''13"1D  m^pn-  The  Sophcrim  are  also  called  coUect- 
ivx'ly  n^n:!"  nOJJ  ■'^JS  the  Meu  of  the  Great  Synod.  According 
to  tradition,  this  synod  consisted  of  120  members,  but  we  have 
no  record  of  their  names  with  the  exception  of  Ezra^  its  founder, 
and  of  Simon  the  Just  (the  high  priest  Simon  I,  between  310-892, 
or  his  grandson  Simon  II,  l)etween  220-202  H.  C.)  who  is  said 
to  have  been  one  of  the  last  nHMubers  oftlie  (Jreat  Synod. 

A/ifigonos  of  Socho,  a  dis('ii)le  of  Simon  t he  .lust,  was  tiie 
connecting  liidc  between  this  and  the  ibllowing  ijcriod. 

b.  The  word  Zi/oot/i  (mim),  meaning  the  ])airs  (duumviri), 
is  the  ap|)ellation  of  the  leading  tcaclicrs  from  .lose  l)en  .Toezer 
till  llillel,  of  whom  always  two,  at  the  same  time,  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  Sanhedrin,    one  as  president  (Nasi),  and  the  other 

as  vice-president,  (Ab  bet  li  din). 

Tlie  succession  of  these  Zngoth  was: 

1.  Jose  bcii  Joezer  9Mk\  Jose  ben  JocJianan,     lloni'isiiiiig    at 
tlie  time  of  the  Macealxian  wars  of  inde))endence. 

2.  Joshua  h.    Pcrachia 'Am\    Nitai  of  Arbela,  \V)\\\\A\\\\\^  wl 
\  he  time  of  .John  ll\  rcaii. 


The  Authorities  of  the  Mishxa.  23 

3.  Juda  b.   Tabai  and  Simon  b.    Shrtac/i,   flijurishing  at  the 
time  of  Alexander  Janai  and  queen  Salome. 

4.  Shanaiah    and  Abtalion,     flourishing    at    the   time    of 
Hyrean  II. 

5.  Hillel  and  Shamai,  flourishing    at   the   time    of    king 
Herod. 

c.  With  the  disciples  of  Hillel  and  Shamai  begins  the 
period  of  lanaini^  which  lasted  about  210  years  (from  10  to  220 
Ch,  Era).  With  the  beginning  of  this  period  the  title  Rabbi 
(my  teacher)  for  the  ordained  teachers,  and  the  title  Rabban^  our 
teacher)  for  the  president  of  the  Sanhedrin  came  in  use. 

In  the  Mishna,  the  term  Tana  (SJn),  meaning  a  teacher  of 
the  oral  law,  does  not  yet  occur.  Thofee  teachers  are  there  sig- 
nified by  generally  adding  the  title  of  Rabbi  to  their  names,  or 
by  calling  them  collectively  n''D2n  the  Sages,  while  the  author- 
ities of  the  preceding  period  are  occasionally  designated  c"'ipT 
D''J1C*S"in  the  former  elders.  It  is  first  in  the  Gemara  that  the 
term  Tana  (SJn)  is  applied  to  a  teacher  mentioned  in  the 
Mishna  and  Baraitha,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Amoraim^  ex- 
l)0unders  of  the  Mishna,  as  the  teachers  after  R.  JehudaHanasi 
are  called. 

The  period  of  the  Tanaim  is  generally  divided  into  5  or  6 
minor  sections  or  generations.  The  purpose  of  this  division  is 
to  show  which  teachers  developed  their  principal  activity  con- 
temporaneously, though  the  actual  lifetime  of  some  of  them  ex- 
tended to  more  than  one  generation. 

The  following  chronological  tables  contain  the  names  only 
of  the  more  prominent  teachers  of  each  generation.  Every 
table  is  followed  by  short  biographical  sketches  of  the  teachers 
mentioned  therein.* 


*  Fuller  characteristics  of  the  lives  and  teachings  of  the  principal 
Tanaim  are  given  in  the  following  works: 

Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews,  Vol.  IV. 

Z.  Frankel,  Darke  Hamishna. 

I.  H.  Weiss,  Zur  Geschichte  der  juedischen  Tradition,  Vol.  I. 
and  II. 

Jacob  Bruell,  Mebo  Hamishna,  Vol.  I. 

J.  Hamburger,  Eeal  Encyclopaedie,  Vol.  11.  Die  Talmudischeo 
Artikel. 

M.  Braunschweiger,  Die  Lehrer  der  Mishnah. 


24  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

The  first  Generation  of  Tanaim. 
§  13. 

The  principal  Tanaim  oi'  the  first  <i;eueration,  which  lasted 
about  seventy  years  \  from  10  to  80,  C.  E.,  are: 

1.  The  School  of  Shamai,  and  the  School  of  Hillel 

2.  Akabia  ben  Mahalalel. 

3.  Rabban  Gamaliel  the  Elder. 

4.  Rabbi  Chaniua,  Chief  of  the  Priests. 

5.  R.  Simon  ben  Gamaliel. 

6.  R.  Jochanan  ben  Zaccai. 

Characteristic*  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

1.  The  School  of  Shamai  and  the  School  of  Hillel  were  founded 
by  the  disciples  of  the  great  teachers  whose  names  they  bear.  Follow- 
ing the  principles  of  their  masters, they  differed  widely  in  their  opinions 
on  many  legal  questions;  the  School  of  Shamai,  in  general,  taking  a 
rigorous,  and  the  school  of  Hillel  a  more  lenient  view  of  the  question. 
In  their  frequent  controversies  the  School  of  Sliamai,  having  been 
founded  already  during  the  life  time  of  Hillel,  is  always  mentioned 
first.  Of  individual  teachers  belonging  to  either  of  these  two  schools 
only  a  very  few  are  occasionally  mentioned  by  name.  Both  schools  exist- 
ed during  the  whole  period  of  the  first  generation,  and  the  antagonism 
of  their  followers  extended  even  to  the  middle  of  the  subsequent  gener- 
ation. 

2.  Akabia  ben  Mahalalel.  Of  this  teacher  who  flourished 
shortly  after  Hillel  only  a  few  opinions  and  traditions  are  recorded. 
According  to  what  is  related  of  him  in  Mishna  Eduyoth  V,  G.  7,  he 
was  a  noble  character  with  unyielding  principles. 

3.  Rabban  Gamaliel  the  Elder.    He  was  a  son  of  R.  Simon,  and 
grandson  of   Hillel  whom   he  succeeded  in  the  office  of  Nasi.     Many 
important  ordinances  (mjpn)  of  the  Rabbinical  law  are  ascribed  to  him 
He  died    eighteen    years    before  the    destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Th 
epithet  "the  Elder"  generally  added  to  his  name,  is  to  distinguish  him 


'  This  comparatively   great  length  of  the  first  generation  is  easily 
explained  by  the  circumstance, that  it  refers  to  the  duration  of  the  pre 
vailing  S(;h(K)ls  of  Sli-imai  and  Hillel. and  not,  as  in  the  subsequent  gen 
erations,  to  that  of  the  activity  of  a  single  leading  teacher. 


The  Authorities  of  the  Mishna.  25 

fi'om  his  grandson  Gamaliel  of  Jaime,  who  flourished  in  the  following 
generation. 

4.  Rabbi  Chanina,  Chief  of  the  Priests,  or  the  proxy  of  the  high- 
priest.  He  as  well  as  "the  court  of  Priests"  D'Jna  bcJ'  1"2  are  inciden- 
tally mentioned  in  the  Mishna  in  connection  with  laws  concerning  the 
sacrifices  and  the  temple  service. 

5.  R.  Simon  ben  Gamaliel.  He  ^as  the  son  and  successor  of  Rab- 
ban  Gamaliel  the  Elder,  and  was  executed  by  the  Romans  in  the  time 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Belonging  to  the  school  of  Hillel, 
his  individual  opinions  in  questions  of  law  are  but  rarely  recorded  in 
the  Mishna.  He  must  not  be  confounded  with  his  grandson  who  had 
the  same  name  and  belonged  to  the  fourth  generation  of  Tanaim. 

6.  R.  Jochanan  b.  Zaccai.  This  distinguished  teacher  was  one  of 
the  youngest  disciples  of  Hillel,  occupied  a  high  position  already  be- 
fore the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  became  the  founder 
and  head  of  the  celebrated  academy  of  Jabne  ( Jamnia). 

Of  other  authorities  belonging  to  the  first  generation  of  Tanaim, 
mention  must  be  made  of  Admon,  Chanan  and  ISiaehum  the  Mede,  who 
were  civil  judges  before  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
whose  legal  opinions  are  occasionally  recorded  in  the  ]\Iishna. 

The  Second  Generation  of  Tanalaf. 
§  14. 

This  generation  lasted  about  forty  ycar><,  from  80  to  120. 
The  principal  Tanaim  belonging  to  it  are: 

1.  Rabban  Gamaliel  II  (of  Jabne). 

2.  Rabbi  Zadok. 

3.  R.  Dosa  (b.  Harchinas). 

4.  R.  Eliezer  b.  Jacob. 

5.  R.  Eliezer  (b.  Ilyrcanos). 

6.  R.  Joshua  (b.  Chanania). 

7.  R.  Elazar  b.  Azaria. 

8.  R.  Jnda  b.  Bathyra. 

Characteristics  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

1.  Rabban  Gamaliel  11.  He  w^as  a  grandson  of  Gamaliel  the  Elder; 
after  the  death  of  R.  Jochanan  b.  Zaccai  he  became  president  of  the 


26  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

academy  of  Jabne,and  like  his  ancestors,  he  bore  the  title  Nasi  (  Prince); 
with  the  Romans,  Patriarch.  In  order  to  distinguish  him  from  his 
grandfather,  he  received  the  surname  Gamaliel  of  Jabne,  or  the 
Second. 

2.  R.  Zadok.  Of  him  it  is  related  that  he,  in  anticipation  of  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple,  fasted  for  forty  successive  years.  He  then 
removed  to  Jabne  where  he  as  vvell  as  his  son,  R.  Eliezer  b.  Zadok,  be- 
longed to  the  distinguished  teachers. 

3.  R.  Dosa  b.  Harchinas  belonged  to  the  school  of  Hillel,  and 
removed  with  R.  Jochanan  b.  Zaccai  from  Jerusalem  to  Jabne  where 
he  reached  a  very  old  age.  He  stood  in  such  high  esteem  that  his  most 
distinguished  colleagues  appealed   to  his  opinion  in  doubtfvil  cases. 

4.  R.  Eliezer  b.  Jacob  was  head  of  a  school,  and  in  possession  of 
traditions  concerni  ng  the  structure  and  interior  arrangements  of  the 
temple.  He  is  also  mentioned  with  commendation  as  to  his  method  of 
instruction  whicn  was  "concise  and  clear"  (>p3l  3p).  There  was  also  an- 
other Tana  by  a  similar  name  who  flourished  in  the  fourth  generation. 

5.  R.  Eliezer  b.  HyrkanosAn  the  Mishna  called  simply  R.  Eliezer, 
was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  disciples  of  R.  Jochanan  b.  Zaccai 
who  characterized  him  as  "the  lime  cemented  cistern  that  does  not 
lose  a  drop"'.  He  was  a  faithful  conservator  of  handed-down  decisions 
and  opposed  to  their  slightest  modification  and  to  any  new  deductions 
to  be  made  therefrom.  His  school  was  in  Lydda,  in  South  Judea. 
Though  formerly  a  discii)le  of  the  Hillelites,  he  inclined  to  the  views 
of  the  Sliamaites  and  consecjuently  came  in  conflict  with  his  colleagues. 
Being  persistent  in  his  opinion,  and  conforming  to  it  even  in  practice, 
he  was  excommunicated  by  his  own  brother-in-law,  the  patriarch 
Gamaliel  II. 

G.  R.  Joshua  b.  Chanania,  in  general  called  simply  R.  Joshua, 
was  likewise  one  of  the  favored  disciples  of  R.  Jochanan  b.  Zaccai. 
Shortly  before  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  he  left  Jerusalem  with 
his  teacher,  after  whose  death  he  founded  a  separate  school  in  Bekiin. 
As  member  of  the  Sanliedrin  in  Jabne,  he  ])articipated  conspicuously 
in  its  deliberations  and  debates.  His  discussions  were  mostly  with 
R.  Eliezer  to  whose  unyielding  conservatism  lie  formed  a  striking  con- 
trast, as  he  represented  the  more  rational  and  conciliatory  element  of 
that  generation,  and  comluned  with  great  learning  tbe  amiable  virtues 


THR   AUTHOIUTIKS  OF  THE  MlSF^XA,  27 

of  gentleness,  modesty  and  placability  which  characterized  the  Hil- 
lelites.  As  he,  on  several  occasions,  was  humiliated  by  the  Nasi  Gamaliel 
II  with  whom  he  differed  on  some  questions,  the  members  of  the  San- 
hedrin  resented  this  insult  of  their  esteemed  colleague  by  deposing  the 
offender  from  his  dignity  and  electing  another  president.  It  was 
only  through  the  interference  of  the  appeased  R.  Joshua  that  R.  Gam- 
aliel, who  apologized  for  his  conduct,    was  again  restored  to  his  office. 

7.  R.  Elazar  b.  Azaria  descended  from  a  noble  family  whose 
pedigree  was  traced  up  to  Ezra  the  Scribe.  Already  while  a  young 
man,  he  enjoyed  such  a  reputation  for  his  great  learning  that  he  was 
made  president  of  the  academy  at  Jabne  in  place  of  the  deposed  R. 
Gamaliel.  When  the  latter  was  reinstated,  R.  Elazar  was  appointed 
as  vice-president.  His  controversies  were  mostly  with  R.  Joshua,  R. 
Tarphon,  R.  Ishmael  and  R.  Akiba.  On  account  of  the  noble  virtues 
which  he  combined  with  his  great  learning  he  was  compared  to  "a 
vessel  filled  with  aromatic  si^ices",  and  R.  Joshua  said  of  him:  "a gen- 
eration having  a  man  like  R.  Elazar  b.  Azaria,    is  not  orphaned". 

8.  R.  Juda  b.  Bathyra  had  a  school  in  Nisibis  (in  Assyria) 
already  at  the  time  when  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  still  in  exist- 
ence. He  was  probably  a  descendant  of  the  family  Bene  Bathyra  who 
were  leaders  of  the  Sanhedrin  under  king  Herod,  and  w^ho  resigned 
that  office  in  favor  of  Hillel.  Several  other  Tanaim  had  the  same 
family  name,  as  R.  Joshua  b.  Bathyra,  R.  Simon  b.  Bathyra  and  one 
called  simply  Ben  Bathyra. 

Of  other  teachers  belonging  to  the  second  generation  we  have  yet 
to  mention  R.  Nechunia  b.  Hakana  who  was  the  teacher  of  R.  Ishmael, 
and  Naclmm  of  Gimzo  who  introduced  the  hermeneutic  rule  of  >nT 
OlyDI  (extension  and  limitation)  which  was  later  further  developed 
by  his  great  disciple  R.  Akiba. 


28  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

The  third  Generation  of  Tanaim. 

§  15.. 

Several  Teachers  of  the  third  j^cneratioii,  which  lasted  IVom 
the  year  120  till  about  131),  flourished  already  in  the  precediug 
one.     The  principal  teachers  are: 

1.  R.  Tarphon. 

2.  R.  Ishmael. 

3.  R.  Akiba. 

4.  R.  Jochanan  b.  Nuri. 

5.  R.  Jose  the  Galilean. 

6.  R.  Simon  b.  Naiios. 
1.  R.  Juda  b.  Baba. 

8.     R,  Jochanan  b.  Rroka. 

Characteristics  and  biographical  Sketches. 

1.  E.  Tarphon,  or  Tryplion,  of  Lydda.  He  is  sr.id  to  have  been 
inclined  to  the  views  of  the  School  of  Shamai.  On  account  of  his 
gi-eat  learning  he  was  called  "the  teacher  of  Israel";  besides,  he  was 
praised  for  his  great  charitable  works.  His  legal  discussions  were 
mostly  with  his  colleague  R.  Akiba. 

3.  R.  Ishmael  (b.  Elisha)  was  probably  a  grandson  of  tlie  high 
priest  Ishmael  b.  Elisha  who  was  condemned  to  death  by  Titus  together 
with  the  patriarch  Simon  b.  Gamaliel  I.  When  still  a  boy,  he  was 
made  a  captive  and  brought  to  Rome,  where  R.  Joshua  who  happened 
to  come  there  on  a  mission, redeemed  him  at  a  high  ransom  and  brought 
him  back  to  Pnlestine.  R.  Nechunin  b.  Hakana  is  mentioned  as  one 
of  his  principal  teachers.  When  grown  to  manhood,  he  became  a 
member  of  the  Sanliedrin  and  was  highly  revered  by  his  colleagues. 
He  is  named  among  those  who  emigrated  with  the  Sanhedrin  from 
Jabne  to  Usha.  His  residence  was  in  South  Judea  in  a  place  called 
Kephar  Aziz.  His  academical  controversies  were  mostly  with  R. 
Akiba  to  whose  artificial  methods  of  interpreting  the  law  he  was 
strongly  opposed,  on  the  principle  that  tlie  Thora,  being  composed  in 
the  usual  language  of  man,  must  be  interpreted  in  a  plain  and  ration- 
al way.  As  guiding  rules  of  interpretation  he  accepted  only  the  seven 
logical  rulcH  wliich  had    been  laid  down  by  Hillel,  which  he  however. 


The  Authorities  of  the  Mishna.  29 

by  some  motlifications  and  subdivisions,  enlarged  to  thirteen.  Of  these 
tliirteen'rules  we  shall  treat  in  the  second  part  of  this  work.  A  separate 
school  which  he  founded  was  continued  after  his  death  by  his  dis- 
ciples and  was  known  by  the  name  of  "Be  R.  Ishmael".  Of  the  book 
Mechilta  which  is  ascribed  to  R.  Ishmael  and  his  school  we  have  spoken 
above  (p.  18). 

3.  R.  Akiba  (b.  Joseph)  was  the  most  prominent  among  the 
Tanaim.  He  is  said  to  have  descended  from  a  proselyte  family  and  to 
have  been  altogether  illiterate  up  to  the  age  of  his  manhood.  Filled  with 
the  desire  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  the  law,  he  entered  a  school 
and  attended  the  lectures  of  the  distinguished  teachers  of  that  time, 
especially  of  R.  Eliezer  b.  Hyrkanos,  R.  Joshua  b.  Chanania,  and  of 
Nachum  of  Gimzo.  Subsequently  he  founded  a  school  in  B'ne  Brak, 
near  Jabne,  and  became  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  last  men- 
tioned city.  Through  liis  keen  intellect,  his  vast  learning  and  his 
energetic  activity  he  wielded  a  great  influence  in  developing 
and  diffusing  the  traditional  law.  He  arranged  the  accumulated 
material  of  that  law  in  a  proper  system  and  methodical  order,  and 
enriched  its  substance  with  many  valuable  deductions  of  his  own.  His 
methodical  arrangement  and  division  of  that  material  was  completed 
by  his  disciple  R.  Meir,  and  later  on  became  the  groundwork  of  the 
Mishna  compiled  by  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi.  Besides,  he  introduced  a  new 
method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures  which  enabled  him  to  find  a 
biblical  basis  for  almost  every  provision  of  the  oral  law.  This  ingen- 
ious method,  wliich  will  be  described  in  the  II  Part  of  this  book,  was 
admired  by  liis  contemporaries,  and  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of 
some  of  his  colleagues,  generally  adopted  in  addition  to  the  13  hermen- 
eutic  rules  of  R.  Ishmael.  R.  Akiba's  legal  opinions  are  very  frequently 
recoi'ded  in  all  parts  of  the  Mishna  and  in  the  kindred  works.  His  acad- 
emical discussions  are  mostly  with  his  former  teachers  R.  Eliezer,  R. 
Joshua  and  with  his  colleagues  R.  Tarphon,  II.  Jochanan  b,  Nuri,  R. 
Jose  the  Galilean  and  others. 

R.  Akiba  died  a  martyr  to  religion  and  patriotism.  Having  been 
a  stout  supporter  of  the  cause  of  Bar  Cochba,  he  was  cruelly  executed 
by  the  Romans  for  publicly  teaching  the  Law  contrary  to  the  edict  of 
the  emperor  Hadrian. 

4.  R.  Jochanan  b.  Nuri  was  a  colleague  of  R.  Akiba  with  whom 
he  frequently  differed  on  questions  of  the  law.  In  his  youth  he  seems 
to  have  been  a  disciplf  of  R.  Gamaliel  II.  for  whose   memory  lie alwaja 


30  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

retained  a  warm  veneration.     He  presided  over  a  college  in  Beth  She- 
arim,  a  place  near  Sepphoris  in  Galilee. 

5.  R.  Jose  the  Galilean  was  a  very  distinguished  teacher.  Of 
his  youth  and  education  nothing  is  known.  At  his  first  appearance  in 
the  Sanhedrin  of  Jabne,  he  participated  in  a  debate  with  R  Tarphon 
and  with  R.  Akiba  and  displayed  such  great  learning  and  sagacity 
that  he  attracted  general  attention.  Prom  this  debate  his  reputation  as 
a  teacher  was  established.  He  was  an  authority  especially  in  the  laws 
concerning  the  sacrifices  and  the  temple  service.  His  discussions  were 
mostly  with  R.  Akiba,  R.  Tarphon  and  R.  Elazar  b.  Azariah.  Of  his 
domestic  life  it  is  related  that  he  had  the  bad  fortune  of  having  an  ill- 
tempered  wife,  who  treated  him  so  meanly  that  he  was  compelled  to 
divorce  her,  but  learning  that  she  in  her  second  marriage  lived  in  great 
misery, he  generously  provided  her  and  her  husband  with  all  the  neces- 
saries of  life.  One  of  his  sons,  R.  Eleazar  b.  R.  Jose  the  Galilean, 
became  a  distinguished  teacher  in  the  following  generation  and  estab- 
lished the  thirty  two  hermeneutic  rules  of  the  Agada. 

6.  jR.  Simon  b.  Nanos,  also  called  simply  Ben  Nanos,  was  a 
great  authority  especially  in  the  civil  law,  so  that  R.  Ishmael  recom- 
mended to  all  law  students  to  attend  the  lectures  of  this  profound 
teacher.  His  legal  controversies  were  mostly  witli  R.  Ishmael  and  R. 
Akiba. 

7.  li.  Jndah  b.  Baba,  who  on  account  of  his  piety  was  called 
the  Chasid,  is  noteworthy  not  only  as  a  distinguished  teacher  but  also 
as  a  martyr  to  Judaism.  Contrary  to  the  Hadrianic  edict  which, under 
extreme  penalty,  prohibited  the  ordination  of  teachers,  he  ordained 
seven  disciples  of  R.  Akiba  as  Rabhis,  and  for  this  act  was  stabbed  to 
death  by  tlie  Roman  soldiers. 

8.  K.  Jochanan  b.  Broka  was  an  authority  especially  in  tlie  civil 
law.  Also  his  son  R.  Ishmael  was  a  distinguished  teacher  who  flourish- 
ed in  the  following  generation.  Of  other  teachers  belonging  to  this 
generation  tlie  following  are  to  be  mentioned.  R.  Elazar  (or  Kliezerj 
oi  Modin,  an  authority  in  Agada  interpretation.  R.  Mutldab.  ChurasJt 
who,  formerly  a  disciple  of  R.  Eliezer  b.  Hyrkanos,  founded  a  school  in 
the  city  of  Ronae  and  thus  was  the  first  teaclier  who  transplanted  the 
knowledge  of  the  rabbinical  law  f  lom  Asia  to  Europe;  further,  several 
of    R.    Akil)a's    earlier  disciples,    fspecially    (Simon)  Ben    Zoma    and 


TnK  ArTiioitiTiKs  OF  tiih:  Misiina.  31 

(Simon)  Ben  Azai,  both  of  whom,  besides  being  distinguished  in  tlie 
law,  were  also  deeply  engaged  in  the  theosophic  speculations  of  those 
times. 

Thk  fourth  (Jfneratton  of  Tanatm. 

This  generation  extended  from  the  death  of  R.  Akiba  to 
the  death  of  tlie  patriarch  R.  Simon  h.  Gamaliel  II,  from  the 
year  139  to  alwnt  165.  Almost  all  leading  teachers  of  this  g(^- 
neration  belong  to  the  latter  disciples  of  R.  Akiba. 

1.  R.  Meir. 

2.  R.  Jehnda  (ben  Ilai), 

3.  R.  Jose  (ben  Chalafta). 

4.  R.  Simon  (b.  Jochai). 
.0.  R.  Elazar  (b.  Shamua). 

6.  R.  Jochanan  the  Sandolar. 

7.  R.  Elazar  b.  Jacob. 

8.  R.  Nehemia.  , 

9.  R.  Joshua  b.  Korcha. 
10.  R.  Simon  b.  Gamaliel. 

Characteristics  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

1.  B.  Meir,  the  most  prominent  among  the  numerous  disciples 
of  R.  Akiba,  was  a  native  of  Asia  Minor  and  gained  a  subsistence  as 
a  skilf  all  copj  ist  of  sacred  Scripture.  At  first,  he  entered  the  acad- 
emy of  R.  Akiba,  but  finding  himself  not  sufficiently  prepared  to 
grasp  the  lectures  of  this  great  teacher,  he  attended,  for  some  time, 
the  school  of  R.  Ishmael,  wliere  he  acquired  an  extensive  knowledge 
of  the  law.  Returning  then  to  R.  Akiba  and  becoming  his  constant  and 
favored  disciple,  he  developed  great  dialectical  powers.  R.  Akiba 
soon  recognized  his  worth  and  preferred  him  to  other  disciples  by 
ordaining  him  at  an  early  date.  This  ordination  was  later  renewed 
by  R.  Judah  b.  Baba.  On  account  of  the  Hadrianic  persecutions,  R.  Meir 
had  to  flee  from  Judea,  but  after  the  repeal  of  those  edicts,  he 
returned  and  joined  his  colleagues  in  re-establishing  the  Sanhedrin 
in  the  city  of  Usha,  in  Galilee.  His  academy  was  in  Emmaus,  near 
Tiberias,  and  for  a  time  also  in  Ardiscus  near  Damascus  where  a  large 


32  HiSTOEICAL  AND  LiTERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

circle  of  disciples  gathered  around  him.  Under  the  patriarch  R. 
Simon  b.  Gamaliel  II  he  occupied  the  dignity  of  a  Chacham  (advising 
Sage),  in  which  office  he  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  pre- 
paring the  subjects  to  be  discussed  in  tne  Sanhedrin.  A  conflict 
which  arose  between  him  and  the  patriarch  seems  to  have  induced 
him  to  leave  Palestine  and  return  to  his  native  country,  Asia  Minor, 
where  he  died.  R.  Meir's  legal  opinions  are  mentioned  almost  in  every 
Masechta  of  the  Mishna  and  Bai-aitha.  His  greatest  merit  was  that 
he  continued  the  labors  of  R.  Akiba  in  arranging  the  rich  material 
of  the  oral  law  according  to  subjects,  and  in  this  way  prepared  the 
great  Mishna  compilation  of  R.  Judah  Hanasi.  Besides  bsing  one  of 
the  most  distingued  teachers  of  the  law,  he  was  also  a  very  popular 
lecturer  (Agadist)  who  used  to  illustrate  his  lectures  by  interesting 
fables  and  parables.  Of  his  domestic  life  it  is  known  tliat  he  was 
married  to  Beruria  the  learned  daughter  of  the  celebrated  teacher 
and  martyr  R.  Chananiah  b.  Teradyon.  Tlie  pious  resignation  which 
he  and  his  noble  wife  exhibited  at  tlie  sudden  death  of  their  two 
promising  sons  has  been  immortalized  by  a  popular  legend  in  the 
HMidrash. 

2.  R.  Jehuda  b.  Ilaiis  generally  called  in  the  Mishna  simply 
R.  Jehuda.  After  having  received  instruction  in  the  law  from  his 
father  who  had  been  a  disciple  of  R.  Eliezer  b.  Hyrkauos,  he  attended 
the  lectures  of  R.  Tarphon  and  became  then  one  of  the  distinguished 
disciples  of  R.  Akiba.  On  account  of  his  great  eloqupnce  he  isc.alled 
D'imDn  tJ'X"!  "The  first  among  the  speakers".  Also  iiis  piety,  mod- 
esty and  i)iu(l(nice  are  highly  praised.  He  gained  a  modest  subsistence 
by  a  iiiechaiiiciil  trade,  in  accordance  with  his  favored  maxims:  "Labor 
honors  man",  and  "He  who  does  not  teach  his  son  a  trade,  teaches 
him,  as  it  were,  robbery".  Having  been  one  of  the  seven  disciples  wlio 
after  the  death  of  R.  Akiba  were  ordained  by  R.  Juda  b.  Baba  contrary 
to  the  Hadrianic  edict,  he  had  to  flee.  After  three  years  he  returned 
with  his  colleagues  to  Usha  and  became  one  of  the  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  resuscitated  Sanhedrin.  The  patriarch  R.  Simon  ben  Gama- 
liel lionored  him  greatly,  and  appointed  him  as  one  of  his  advisers. 
As  oxjMJunder  of  the  law  he  was  a  great  authority,  and  is  very  often 
quoted  in  all  parts  of  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha.  His  legal  opinions 
generally  prevail,  when  differing  from  those  of  his  colleagues  R.  Meir 
and  R.  Simon.    To  liitn  is  also  ascribed  the  authorship  of  the  essential 


The  Authorities  OP  THE  MisHNA.  33 

part  of  the  Siphra.  (See  above  p.  19).  The  Agada  of  the  Talmud  records 
many  of  his  beautiful  sayings  which  characterize  him  not  only  as  a 
noble-hearted  teacher,  but  also  as  a  sound  and  clear-headed  interpreter 
of  Scriptures.  He,  for  instance,  denied  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  bones  spoken  of  in  Ezekiel  ch.  XXXVII,  but 
declared  it  to  be  merely  a  poetical  figure  for  Israel's  rejuvenation  (Talm 
Sanhedrin  72  b.). 

R.  Jehuda  had  two  learned  sons  who  flourished  as  teachers  in  the 
following   generation. 

.3.  R.  Jose  b.  Chalafta,  in  the  Mishna  called  simply  R.  Jose,  was 
from  Seppho7v's  where  already  his  learned  father  had  established  a 
school.  Though  by  trade  a  tanner,  he  became  one  of  the  most  disting- 
uished teaeliers  of  his  time.  He  was  a  disciple  of  R.  Akiba  and  of 
R.  Tarphon.  Like  his  colleagues  he  was  ordained  by  R.  Juda  b.  Baba 
and,  on  this  account,  had  to  flee  to  the  south  of  Palestine,  whence  he 
later  on  returned  with  them  to  Usha.  For  having  kept  silent,  when 
in  his  presence  R.  Simon  made  a  slighting  remark  against  the  Roman 
government,  he  was  banished  to  Asia  Minor.  When  permitted  to 
return,  he  settled  in  his  native  city  Sepphoris  where  he  died  in  a  high 
age.  Besides  being  a  great  authority  in  the  law,  whose  opinions  prevail 
against  those  of  his  colleagues  R.  IMeir,  R.  Jehuda  and  R.  Simon,  he 
was  an  historian  to  whom  the  authorship  of  the  chronological  book 
Seder  Olavi  is  ascribed. 

4.  R.  Simon  b.  Jochai  from  Galilee,  in  the  Mishna  called  simply  R. 
Simon,  was  likewise  one  of  tlie  most  distinguished  disciples  of  R. 
Akiba  whose  lectures  he  attended  during  thirteen  years.  "Be  satisfied 
tliat  I  and  thy  creator  know  thy  i)owers",  were  the  words  with  wJiich 
this  teacher  comforted  him,  when  he  felt  some.vhat  slighted  on 
account  of  a  certain  preference  given  to  his  younger  colleague  R.  Meir. 
He  shared  the  fate  of  his  colleagues  in  being  compelled  to  flee  after 
ordination.  Afterwards,  he  joined  them  at  the  new  seat  of  the 
Sanhedrin  in  Usha.  On  a  certain  occasion  he  gave  vent  to  his  bitter 
feeling  against  the  Romans,  which  was  reported  to  the  Roman  governor 
who  condemned  him  to  death.  He,  however,  escaped  this  fate  by 
concealing  himself  in  a  cave  where  he  is  said  to  have  remained  for 
several  years  together  with  his  son,  engaged  in  the  study  of  the  law, 
and  subsisting  on  the  fruit  of  the  carob-trees  which  abounded  there 
in  the  neighborhood.     In  the  meantime  political    affairs  had  taken  a 


34  HiSTOBICAL  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

favorable  tui-nso  that  he  had  no  longer  to  fear  any  persecution;  he  left 
his  hiding  place  and  reopened  his  academy  at  Tekoa,  in  Galilee,  where 
a  circle  of  disciples  gathered  around  him.  He  survived  all  his  col- 
leagues, and  in  his  old  age  was  delegated  to  Rome,  where  he  succeeded 
in  obtaining  from  the  emperor  (Marcus  Aurelius)  the  repeal  of  some 
edicts  against  the  Jewish  religion. 

In  the  interpretation  of  the  law,  E.  Simon  departed  from  the 
method  of  his  teacher  R.  Akiba,  as  he  inclined  to  the  view  of  R. 
Ishmael  that  "the  Thora  speaks  the  common  language  of  man",  and 
consequently  regarded  logical  reasoning  as  the  proper  starting  point 
for  legal  deductions,  instead  of  pleonastic  words,  syllables  and  letters. 
In  accordance  with  this  sound  principle,  he  tried  to  investigate  the 
evident  motive  of  different  biblical  laws,  and  to  make  conclusions 
therefrom  for  their  proper  application.  '  In  regard  to  treating  and 
arranging  the  oral  law,  however,  he  followed  the  method  of  R.  Akiba 
in  subsuming  various  provisions  under  guiding  rules  and  principles. 
R.  Simon  is  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  Siphre,  though  that  work  in 
its  present  shape  shows  many  additions  by  the  hands  of  later  authorities. 
(See  above  p.  20). 

5.  R.  Elazar  b.  Shamua,  in  the  Mishna  simply  R.  Elazar,  was 
among  those  of  R.  Akiba's  disciples  who  in  consequence  of  the  Hadrian 
edicts  went  to  the  South,  whence  he  went  to  Nisibis.  He  does  not, 
however,  appear  to  have  joined  his  colleagues  when  they  gathered 
again  at  Uslia.  He  is  regarded  as  a  great  authority  in  the  law.  The 
place  of  his  academy  is  not  known,  but  it  is  stated  that  his  school  was 
always  overcrowded  by  disciples  eager  to  hear  his  learned  lectures. 
Among  his  disciples  was  also  the  later  patriarch  R.  Jehuda.  On  a 
journey,  he  visited  his  former  colleague  R.  Meir  at  Ardiscos.  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  with  him  liad  discussions  on  important  questions  of  the 
law  wliich   are  recorded  in  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha. 

6.  R.  Jochanan  the  Sandelar  had  tliis  surname  probably  from 
his  trade  in  sandals.  Born  in  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  he  came  to  Palestine 
to  attend  the  lectures  of  R.  Akiba,  and  was  so  faithful  a  disciple  that 
he  visited  this  teacher  even  in  prison,  in  order  to  receive  instruction 
from  him.  His  legal  opinions  are  occasionaly  recorded  in  the  Mishna 
as  well  as  in  the  Tosephta  and  Baraitlia. 


'     See  Talm.  B.  Metzia  115  a  and  Sanhedrin  21  a. 


The  Authorities  of  the  Mishna.  35 

7.  R.  Elazar  (or  Eliezer)  h.  Jacob  was  a  disciple  of  K.  Akiba  and 
later  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin  in  Usha.  This  teacher  must  not  be 
confounded  with  a  former  teacher  by  that  name  who  flourished  in  the 
second  generation  (See  above  p.  26). 

8.  R,  Nechernia  belonged  to  the  last  disciples  of  R.  Akiba  and  was 
an  autliority  especially  in  the  sacrificial  law  and  in  the  laws  concerning 
levitical  puriticaticn.  His  controversies  are  mostly  with  R.  Juda  b. 
Ilai.  He  is  said  to  have  compiled  a  Mishna- collection  which  was 
embodied  in  the  Tosephta. 

9.  R.  Joshua  b.  Korcha  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  been  a  son 
of  R.  Akiba  wlio,  on  one  occasion,  is  called  by  such  a  surname  (meaning 
the  bald  headj  ;  but  this  supposition  is  very  improbable,  for  it  would 
be  strange  that  the  son  of  so  illustrious  a  man  should  not  rather  have 
been  called  by  his  father's  proper  name,  and  that  he  should  never  have 
alluded  to  his  celebrated  parent  or  to  any  of  his  teachings.  > 

R,  Joshua  b.  K.  belonged  to  the  authorities  of  this  generation, 
though  only  a  few  of  his  opinions  are  recorded  in  the  Mishna. 

10.  R.  Simon  b.  Oamaliel  was  the  son  and  successor  of  the 
patriarch  Gamaliel  II  of  Jabne.  In  his  youth,  he  witnessed  tlie  fall  of 
Bethar,  and  escaped  the  tlireatened  arrest,  by  flight.  After  the  deatli 
of  the  emperor  Hadrian,  he  returned  to  Jabne  where  he  in  connection 
with  some  teachers,  reopened  an  academy,  and  assumed  the  hereditary 
dignity  of  a  patriarch.  As  the  returning  disciples  of  R.'Akiba,  who  were 
the  leading  teachers  of  that  generation,  prefen-ed^Usha  as  the  seat  of  the 
new  Sanhedrin,  R.  Simon  was  obliged  to  transfer  his  academy  to  that 
city,  and  appointed  R.  Nathan  as  Ab  Beth-din  (vice-president)  and  R. 
Meir  as  C!hacham  (advising  sage,  or  speaker).  Both  of  these  two  otficers 
had  to  retire  however,  when  found  planning  his  deposal  on  account  of 
some  marks  of  distinction  introduced  in  order  to  raise  the  patriachal 
dignity.  He  did  not  enjoy  the  privilege  of  his  predecessors  to  be  titled 
Rubban  (our  teacher),  but  like  the  other  teacliers,  he  was  simply  called 
Rabbi  (my  teacher) ', probably  because  many  of  his  contemporaries  were 


'  That  R.  Akiba  had  a  son  by  the  name  of  R.  Joshua  is  stated  in 
a  Baraitha  (Pesachim  112a  and  Shebiiotli  6a);  but  the  identity  of  this 
son  with  R.  Joshua  b.  Korcha  is  conclusively  disproved  by  the  Tosaph- 
ist  Rabenu    Tarn  in  his  remarks  on  Sabbath  150a  and  B.  Bathra  113a. 

'  There  are,  however,  some  passages  in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara 
in  which  he  is  called  Rabban,  as  Gittin  74a;  B.  Bathra  113a;  Arachin 
28a. 


36  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

superior  to  him  in  learning.  Still,  his  legal  opinions,  whicl)  are  fre- 
quently quoted  in  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha,  give  evidence  that  he  was 
a  man  of  considerable  learning  and  of  sound  and  clear  judgment  as 
well  as  of  noble  principles.  He  introduced  several  legal  provisions  for 
the  protection  of  the  rights  of  women  and  slaves  and  for  the  general 
welfare  of  the  community.  All  his  opinions  expressed  in  the  Mishna, 
with  the  exception  of  only  three  cases,  are  regarded  by  later  teachers 
as  authoritative  (Halacha).  His  discussions  recorded  in  the  Mishna  and 
Baraitha  are  mostly  held  with  his  celebrated  son  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi.  R. 
Simon  b.  Gamaliel  appears  to  have  been  acquainted  also  with  the  Greek 
language  and  sciences. 

Of  other  authorities  belonging  to  this  generation,  we  have  to 
mention:  Ahba  Saul,  R.  Elazar  b.Zadok.  and  especially  R.  Ishinael 
the  son  of  R.  Jochanan  b.  Broka. 

Apart  from  the  great  circle  of  teachers  mentioned  above,  the 
disciples  of  R.  Ishmael  b.  Elisha  formed  a  school  in  the  extreme  South 
of  Judea  (Darom)  where  they  continued  the  methods  of  their  teacher. 
Of  this  separate  school,  called  Debe  R.  Ishmael,  only  two  members  are 
mentioned  by  name:   R.  Josiah  and  R.  Jonathan. 

The  Fifth  Generation  of  Tanaim. 
§  n. 
This   generation   extends    from  the  death  of  R.   Simon  b. 
Gamaliel  II  to  the  death  of  K.  Jehuda  Hanasi  (from   1(>5  to 
about   200.) 

'I'he  loliowiiiii'  are  the  most  prominent  teachers  of  this  gen- 
('r;iti(jii. 

1.  R.  Nathan  (the  Babylonian). 

2.  Symmachos. 

3.  R.  Jehuda    Hanasi    (the  patriarch),  called  simply 
Rabbi. 

4.  R.  Jose  b.  Juda. 

5.  R.  Elazar  b.  Simon. 

6.  R.  Simon  b.  Elazar. 
Characteristics  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

1.  R.  Nathan  was  the  son  of  one  of  the  exilarchs  in  Babylon,  and 
probably    received  his  education   in  his    native    country.     For  some 


The  Authorities  of  the  M-shna.  37 

unknown  reasons  he  emigrated  to  Judea,  and  on  account  of  his  great 
learning  he  was  appointed  by  the  patriarch  R.  Simon  b.  GamaUel 
to  the  dignity  of  Ab-Beth-din  (chief  Justice  or  vice-president)  in  the 
Sanhedrin  of  Usha.  He  had  to  retire  from  this  office  becauce  of  his 
and  R.  Meir's  dissension  with  the  patriarch,  but  was  soon  reinstated 
and  became  reconciled  with  the  Synhedrial  president  who  held  him  in 
high  esteem.  Also  the  succeeding  patriarch  R.  Jehuda,  with  whom  he 
had  many  discussions  on  questions  of  the  law,  speaks  of  him  with  great 
respect.  R.Nathan  was  not  only  an  authorityintherabbinicallaw,  espec- 
ially in  jurisprudence, but  appears  also  to  have  been  well  versed  in  mathe- 
matics, astronomy  and  other  sciences.  To  him  is  ascribed  the  authorship 
of  Aboth  de  R.  Nathan,  which  is  a  kind  of  Tosephta  to  Pirke  Aboth. 

2.  Symmachos  was  a  prominent  disciple  of  R.  Meir  and  disting- 
uished for  his  great  dialectical  powers.  After  the  death  of  his  teacher, 
he  as  well  as  other  disciples  of  R.  Meir  were  excluded  from  the  academy 
of  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi,  as  they  were  charged  of  indulging  in  sophistical 
disputations  in  order  to  display  their  dialectical  sagacity,  instead  of 
seeking  after  truth.  Nevertheless  the  Mishna  as  well  as  the  Tosephta 
makes  mention  of  the  opinions  of  Symmachos.  His  renown  lay  in  the 
rabbinical  jurisprudence  in  which  he  laid  down  certain  principles  often 
referred  to  in  the  Talmud. 

3.  R.  Jehuda  {Judo)  Hanasi,  by  way  of  eminence  simply  called 
Rabbi,  was  a  son  of  the  patriarch  R.  Simon  b .  Gamaliel  II,  and  is  said 
to  have  been  born  on  the  same  day  when  R.  Akiba  was  executed.  His 
principal  teachers  were  R.  Simon  b.  Jochai  and  R.  Elazar  b.  Shamua 
under  whose  guidance  his  intellectual  capacity  and  splendid  talents 
early  developed.  Beside  his  immense  knowledge  of  the  whole  range 
of  the  traditional  law,  he  had  a  liberal  education  in  secular  branches  and 
was  especially  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language  which  he  preferred 
to  the  Syriac,  the  popular  language  of  Palestine  at  that  time.  After 
the  death  of  his  father  he  succeeded  him  in  the  dignity  of  patriarch, 
and  became  the  chief  authority  eclipsing  all  other  teachers  of  that 
generation.  Though  blessed  with  great  riches,  he  preferred  to  live  in 
a  simple  style  and  applied  his  wealth  to  the  maintenance  of  his  numer- 
ous pupils  and  to  charitable  works.  The  seat  of  his  academy  was  first 
at  Beth-Shearim,  afterward  at  Sepphoris  and  also  at  Tiberias.  Among 
his  most  distinguished  disciples  were:  R.  Chiya;  (Simon)  bar  Kappara; 


38  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Levi  bar  Sissi;  R.  Abba  Areca,  later  called  Rab;  Mar  Samuel,  and  many 
others.  He  is  said  to  have  been  in  a  friendly  relation  with  one  of  the 
Roman  emperors,  either  Marcus  Aurelius  or,  more  probably,  Lucius 
Verus  Antoninus.  By  virtue  of  his  authority  R.  Jehuda  abolished 
several  customs  and  ceremonies  which  though  sanctified  by  age  had 
become  impracticable  through  the  change  of  times  and  circumstances. 
His  most  meritorious  work  by  which  he  erected  for  himself  a  monu. 
ment  of  enduring  fame  was  the  completion  of  the  Mishna  compilation 
which  henceforth  became  the  authoritative  code  of  the  traditional  law 
and  superseded  all  similar  compilations  made  by  former  teachers. 

4.  R.  Jose  ben  Juda  (b.  Ilai)  belonged  to  the  great  teachers  of 
that  generation  and  was  a  friend  of  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi.  His  legal 
opinions  are  frequently  recorded  in  the  Mishna  as  well  as  in  the 
Tosephta. 

5.  a.  Elazar  h.  Simon  (b.  Jochai)  was  a  disciple  of  R.  Simon  b. 
Gamaliel  and  of  R.  Joshua  b.  Koreha.  Although  an  authority  in  the 
rabbinical  law  to  whom  even  the  patriarch  sometimes  yielded,  he 
incurred  the  severest  censure  of  his  colleagues  for  having,  on  a  certain 
occasion,  lent  his  assistance  to  the  Romans  in  persecuting  some  Jewish 
freebooters. 

6.  R.  Simon  b.  Elazar  (probably  E.  b,  Shamua)  was  a  disciple  of 
R.  Meir  whose  opinions  he  often  quotes.  He  established  several  import- 
ant principles,  especially  in  the  civil  law. 


The  Authorities  of  the  Mishna.  39 

The  sixth  Generation  of  Tanaim. 

§18. 

To  this  generation  belong  the  younger  contemporaries  and 
disciples  of  R.  Juda  Hanasi.  They  are  not  mentioned  in  the 
Mishna,  but  in  the  Tosephta  and  Baraitha,  and  are  therefore 
termed  semi-Tanaim,  who  form  a  connecting  link  between  the 
period  of  Tanaim  and  that  of  the  Amoraim.     Their  names  are: 

1.  Plimo. 

2.  Ise  b.  Juda. 

3.  R,  Elazar  b.  Jose. 

4.  R.  Ishmael  bar  Jose. 

5.  R.  Juda  b.  Lakish. 

6.  R.   Chiya. 

7.  R.  Acha. 

8.  R.  Abba  (Areca). 

The  most  prominent  among  these  semi-Tanaim  were  R.  Chiya  and 
R.  Abba  (Areca). 

1.  R.  Chiya  (bar  Abba)  the  elder,  which  epithel  is  to  distinguish 
him  from  a  later  Amoi'a  by  the  same  mame,  was  a  Babylonian  who 
came  at  an  already  advanced  age  to  Palestine  where  he  became  the 
most  distinguished  disciple  and  friend  of  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi.  He  and 
his  disciple  R.  Oshaya  for  Hoshaya)  are  regarded  as  the  principal  authors 
or  compilers  of  the  Tosephta  (see  above  p.  17). 

2.  R.  Abba  (Areca)  a  nephew  of  R.  Chi^"^  was  likewise  a  Babyl- 
onian and  a  disciple  of  R.  Jeliuda  Hanasi,  after  whose  death  he 
returned  to  his  native  country  where,  under  the  historical  name  of  Rab. 
he  became  the  principal  Amora.     (See  the  following  chapter). 

Of  other  distinguished  teachers  flourishing  in  this  generation  and 
in  the  beginning  of  the  period  of  the  Amoraim  we  have  to  mention 
especially  K.  Janai  (the  elder)  and  R.  Jonathan  (the  elder).  The 
former  lived  in  Sepphoris  and  was  one  of  the  teachers  of  R,  Jochanan 
bar  Naphachi,  the  greatest  among  the  Palestinian  Amoraim. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  EXPOUNDERS  OF  THE  MISHNA. 

§  19. 

As  the  Mislina  compilation  of  11.  Jehuda  Hanasi  became 
the  authoritative  code  of  the  oral  Law,  the  activity  of  the 
teachers  was  principall}'  devoted  to  expounding  this  code.  This 
was  done  as  well  in  the  academies  of  Tiberias^Sepphoris,  Caesarca 
in  Palestine,  as  in  those  of  Nahardea^  Sura,  and  later  of  Pumba- 
ditha  and  some  other  seats  of  learning  in  Babylonia.  The  main 
object  of  the  lectures  and  discussions  in  those  academies  was  to 
interpret  the  often  very  brief  and  concise  expression  of  the 
Mishna,  to  investigate  its  reasons  and  sources,  to  reconcile  seem- 
ing contradictions,  to  compare  its  canons  with  those  of  the  Ba- 
raithoth,and  to  apply  its  decisions  and  established  principles  to 
new  cases  not  yet  provided  for.  The  teachers  who  Avere  engaged 
in  this  work  which  finally  became  embodied  in  the  Gemara,are 
called  Amoraim^  meaning  speakers,  interpreters,  expounders.  ' 
They  were  not  as  independent  in  their  legal  opinions  and  de- 
cisions as  their  predecessors,  the  Tanaim  and  semi-Tanaim,  as 
they  had  not  the  authority  to  contradict  Halachoth  and  prin- 
ciples accepted  in  the  Mishua  or  Baraitha.  The  Palestinian 
Amoraim  having  generally  been  ordained  by  the  Nasi  had  the 


'  In  a  more  restricted  meaning  Uio  term  Aviora(ix<i^ai  IJDK  to  say, 
to  speak)  signifies  the  same  as  Methurgeman  (pojlino  the  interpreter), 
that  is  tlie  officer  in  the  academies  who,  standing  at  the  side  of  the 
lecturer  or  presiding  teacher,  had  to  announce  loudly  and  explain  to 
the  large  assembly  what  the  teacher  just  expressed  briefly  and  in  a 
low  voice. 

The  term  Tana,  which  generally  applies  only  to  the  teachers  men- 
tioned in  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha,  is  in  the  period  of  Amoraim  some- 
times used  als<j  to  signify  one  whose  special  business  it  was  to  recite  the 
memorized  Baraithoth  (o  the  expounding  teachers.  In  this  sense  the 
term  is  to  be  understood  in  the  phrase:  'JI^ST  n^Dp  KJO  'Jn  Betza  29b. 
and  often. 


The  Expounders  of  thp:  Mishna.  41 

t\\]e  of  -Ra33i,  wliile  the  Babylonian  teachers  of  tliat  period  had 
only  the  title  of  J^a/?  or  of  Mar. 

The  period  of  Amoraim  extends  from  the  death  of  R.  Jehiidu 
Hanasi  to  the  compilation  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  that  is, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  third  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century. 
This  period  has  been  divided  by  some  into  six,  by  others  into 
seven  minor  periods  or  generations  which  are  determined  ])y  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  the  activity  of  the  most  prominent 
teachers  flourishing  during  that  time. 

The  number  of  Amoraim  who  are  mentioned  in  the  Talmud 
amounts  to  several  hundreds.  •  The  most  distmguislied  among 
them,  especially  those  who  presided  over  the  great  academies 
are  contained  in  the  following  chronological  tables  of  the  six 
generations  of  Amoraim.' 

The  first  Generation  of  Amoraim. 
§  -0. 

B.     Babylonian  (l2I9-25(). 

1 .  Abba  Areca,  called  simply 
Ral). 

2.  (Mar)  Samuel. 


A.     ralestinian  (219-2T9). 

1.  R.  Chanina  bar  Chama. 

2.  R.  Jochanan  (bar  Napacha) 

3.  R.  Simon  ben  Lakish  (Resh 
Lakish). 

4.  R.  Joshua  ben  Levi. 


Biographical  Sketches. 
A.     Palestinian  Amoraim. 

During  this  generation  R.  Gamaliel  III  and  R.  Judali  II  were  sue 
cessively  the  patriarchs. 

1.    E.  Chanina  bar  Chama  (born  about  180.  died  360)  was  a  disciple 
of  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi  whose  son  and  successor  R.  Gamaliel  III  bestowed 


'  Some  scholars  count  the  semi-Tanaim  as  the  first  generation, 
and  have  consequently  seven  instead  of  six  generations.  The  period  of  i> 
Palestinian  Amoraim  being  much  shorter  than  that  of  the  Babylonian, 
ends  with  the  third  generation  of  the  latter.  Frankelinhis  'DpB'ITri  NUD,. 
treating  especially  of  the  Palestinian  Amoraim,  divides  them  also  into 
six  generations. 


42  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

on  him  the  title  of  Rabbi.  He  then  presided  over  his  own  academy  in 
Sepphoris  and  stood  in  high  regard  on  account  of  his  learning,  modesty 
and  piety.  As  teacher  he  was  very  conservative,  transmitting  that 
onlj'  which  he  had  received  by  tradition,  without  ever  allowing  himself 
an  independent  decision.  Of  his  prominent  <^ontemporaries  are:  R. 
Ephes  who  reopened  a  school  at  Lydda  in  South  Judea;  Levi  b.  Sissi 
(called  simply  Levi)  who  though  not  presiding  over  an  academy,  was  a 
distinguished  teacher,and  later  emigrated  to  Babylonia;  further  Chizkia 
who  was  a  son  of  R.  Chiya  the  Eider  and  whose  teachings  are  fre- 
quently quoted  in  the  Talmud.  This  Chizkia  who  had  not  the  title  of 
Rabbi  must  not  be  mistaken  for  a  R.  Chizkia  who  belonged  to  the  third 
generation.  v 

2.  R.  JochaJian  bar  Napacha,  in  general  called  simply  R.  Jochanan 
(born  about  199;  d.  379),  was  in  his  early  youth  a  disciple  of  R.  Jehuda 
Hanasi,  later  of  R.  Oshaya  in  Caesarea,  also  of  R.  Janai  and  especially 
of  R.  Chanina  b.  Chama.  He  then  founded  his  own  academy  in  Tiberias 
which  henceforth  became  the  principal  seat  of  learning  in  the  holy 
land.  By  his  great  mental  powers  he  excelled  all  his  contemporaries 
and  is  regarded  the  chief  Amora  of  Palestine.  In  expounding  the 
Mishna  he  introduced  an  analytical  method,  and  laid  down  certain 
rules  for  the  final  decision  in  such  cases  in  which  the  Tanaim  expressed 
opposite  opinions.  His  legal  teachings  ethic  al  aphorisms,  and  exegetical 
remarks,  transmitted  by  his  numerous  disciples,  form  the  principal 
elements  of  the  Gemara.  He  is  supposed  to  have  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  Palestinian  Talmud,  though,  in  its  present  shape,  this  work 
can  not  have  been  compiled  before  at  least  one  century  after  R.  Jocha- 
nan's  death.  • 

3.  R.  Simon  b.Lakish,  whose  name  is  generally  abbreviated  in  Resh 
Lakish,  was  a  man  who  combined  great  physical  strength  with  a  noble 
heart  and  a  powerful  mind.  It  is  said,  that  in  his  youth,  he  was  com- 
pelled by  circumstances  to  gain  his  livelihood  as  a  gladiator  or  soldier 


'  As  to  further  characteristics  of  this  and  the  other  prominent 
Amoraim,  the  folloving  works  may  be  consulted:  (Jraetz,  History  of 
^  the  Jews,  vol.  IV;  Z.  Frankel,  Mebo;  I.  H.  Weiss,  Dor  Dor,  vol  III; 
I.  Hamburger,  Real  Encyclopadie,  vol  II.  Besides,  J.  Fiirst,  "Kultur 
und  Litera,turgeschi(;hte  der  Juden  in  Asien",  which  treats  especially 
of  the  I?abyloni;in  academies  and  te;ichers  during  the  period  of  the 
Aniortiim. 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mtshna.  43 

until  making  the  acquaintance  of  R.  Jochanan  who  gained  him  for  the 
study  of  the  law  and  gave  him  his  sister  in  marriage.  Having  devel- 
oped extraordinary  mental  and  dialectical  powers,  he  becanie  R.  Jocha- 
nan's  most  distinguished  friend  and  colleague.  In  the  interpretation 
of  the  Mishna  and  in  legal  questions  they  differed  however  very  often, 
and  their  numerous  controversies  are  reported  in  the  Babylonian  Tal- 
mud as  well  as  in  the  Palestinian.  Also  in  his  Agadic  teachings,  Resh 
Lakish  was  original  and  advanced  some  very  rational  views. 

4.  R.  Joshua  h.  Levi  (ben  Sissi)  pi-esided  over  an  academy  in  Lyd- 
da.  He  is  regared  as  a  great  authority  in  the  law,  and  his  decisions 
prevail  even  in  cases  where  his  celebrated  contemporaries,  R.  Jochanan 
and  Resh  Lakish  differ  from  him.  Tliough  himself  a  prolific  Agadist, 
he  disapproved  the  vagaries  of  the  Agada  and  objected  to  their  being 
written  down  in  books.  The  circunstance  that,  on  a  certain  occasion, 
his  prayer  for  rain  proved  to  be  efficient,  probably  gave  rise  to  the 
mystic  legends  with  which  the  fancy  of  later  generation  tried  to 
illustrate  hi^  great  piety. 

To  other  celebrities  flourishing  in  this  generations  belongs  R. 
Sinilai  of  Lydda  who  later  settled  in  Nahardea.  He  was  reputed  less 
as  teacher  of  the  Halacha  than  for  his  ingenious  and  lucid  method  of 
treating  the  Agada. 

B.     Babylonian  Amoraim. 

1.  Abba  Areca  (or  Aricha)  was  the  real  name  of  the  chief  Babyl- 
onian Amora  who,  by  way  of  eminence,  is  generally  called  Rub  (the 
teacher).  He  was  born  about  175  and  died  347.  As  an  orphaned  youth 
he  went  to  his  uncle  the  celebrated  R.  Chiya  in  Palestine  to  finish  his 
studies  in  the  academy  of  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi.  The  mental  abilities 
which  he  displayed  soon  attracted  general  attention.  After  the  death 
of  R.  Jehuda,  Abba  returned  to  his  native  country  and  in  the  year 
319  founded  the  academy  in  Sura  where  1300  pupils  flocked  around 
him  from  all  parts  of  Babylonia.  His  authority  was  recognized  even  bj; 
the  most  celebrated  teachers  in  Palestine .  Being  regarded  as  one  of 
the  semi-T;maim  he  ventured  in  some  instances  even  to  dispute  some 
opinions  accepted  in  the  Mishni,  a  privilege  otherwise  not  accorded  to 
any  of  the  Amoraim.  '  Most  of  his  decisions,  especially  in  ritual 
questions,    obtained    legal  sanction,   but  in  the   civil  law    his  friend 


*    i''bQ^  Nin  S3n  m^  Erubin  50b  and  often. 


44  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Samuel  in  Naliardea  was  his  superior'.  Over  one  hundred  of  his 
numerous  disciples,  who  transmitted  his  teachings  and  decisions  to 
later  generations  are  mentioned  in  the  Talmud  by  their  names. 

3.  Samuel,  or  Mar  Samuel,  was  born  about  180  in  Nahardea,  died 
there  257,  His  father,  Abba  bar  Abba,  and  Levi  b.  Sissi  were  his  first 
teachers.  Like  Rab  he  went  to  Pal  estine  and  became  a  disciple  of 
Rabbi  JehudaHanasi  from  whom,  however,  he  could  not  obtain  the 
ordination.  After  his  return  to  Nahardea,  he  succeeded  R.  Shela  in 
the  dignity  of  president  of  the  academy  (Resh-Sidra)  in  that  city. 
Besides  the  law,  he  cultivated  the  sciences  of  medicine  and  astronomy. 
As  Amora  he. developed  especially  the  rabbinical  jurisprudence  in 
which  he  was  regarded  as  the  greatest  authority  ^.  Among  other  import- 
ant principles  established  by  him  is  that  of  "Ditia  d^malchutha  Dina", 
that  is,  the'civil  law  of  the  government  is  as  valid  for  the  Jews  as  their 
own  law.  The  most  friendly  and  brotherly  relation  prevailed  between 
Samuel  and  Rab,  although  they  often  differed  in  questions  of  the 
aw.  After  Rab's  death  (247),  his  disciples  recognized  Samuel  as  the 
highest  religious  authority  of  Babylonia.  He  died  about  ten  years 
later,  leaving  behind  numerous  disciples,  several  of  whom  became  the 
leading  teachers  in  the  following  generation. 

A  distinguished  contemporary  of  Samuel  was  Mar    XJkba,  at  first 
head  of  the  court  in  Kafri,  and  later  Exilarch  in  NahaidL.  . 


'     pnn  bxiOSysl  mD''X3  l-O   sriD^n  Bechorotli  401), 
"    Mar  Samuel   made  also    a  compilation  of  Bani  itbotli  which  is 
quoted  in  the  Talmud  by   the  phrase  ^XIOK'  'm  XJn.     Botza  29a  and 
Mood  Katon  lyij;   see  Rashi's  rciuarlc  Lo  tlic  litst  mentioned    passage. 


The  Expounders  op  the  Mishna. 


45 


The  second  Generation  of  Amokaim. 
§  21. 


A.     Palestinian  (279-320) 
R.  Elazar  b.  Pedatli. 


0 

R.  Ame. 

3. 

R.  Assi. 

4. 

R.  Chiya  bar  Abba 

5. 

Simon  bar  Abba. 

6. 

R.  Abbahu. 

7.   R.  Zera  (Zeira). 


B.      Babylonian  (257-320). 

1.  Rab  Hnna. 

2.  Rab  J  uda  bar  Jecheskel. 

3.  Rab  Cliisda  (or  Cliasda). 

4.  Rab  Shesheth. 

5.  Rab  Nachman  b.  Jacob. 


Remarks  and  Biographical  Sketches. 
A.     Palestinian  Amoraim. 

The  pariarcliate  during  this  generation  was  successively  in  the 
hands  of  R.  Gamaliel  IV  and  R.  Judah  III. 

1.  R.  Elazar  ben  Pelath.  ganerally  called  simp  y  R.  Elazar,  like 
the  Tana  R.  Elazar  (ben  Shamua)  for  whom  he  must  not  be  mistaken, 
was  a  native  of  Babylonia  and  a  disciple  and  later  an  associate  of  R. 
Jochanan  whom  he  survived.  He  enjoyed  great  authority  and  is  very 
often  quoted  in  the  Talmud. 

2  and  3.  jB.  Ame  and  R.  Assi  were  likewise  Babylonians,  and 
distinguished  (Jisciples  of  R.  Jochanan.  After  the  death  of  R.  Elazar 
they  became  the  heads  of  the  declining  academy  in  Tiberias.  They 
had  the  title  only  of  ,, Judges,  or  the  Aaronites  of  the  Holy  Land"  and 
subordinated  themselves  to  the  growing  authority  of  the  teachers  in 
Babylonia.  Rabbi  Assi  is  not  to  be  confoundend  with  his  contempor- 
ary, the  Babylonian  Amora  Rab  Assi,  who  was  a  colleague  of  Rab 
Saphra  and  a  disciple  of  Rab  in  Sura.  ' 

4  and  5.  R.  Chiya  bar  Abba  and  Simon  bar  Abba  were  probably 
brothers.  They  had  immigrated  from  Babylonia  and  became  disci 
pies  of  R.  Jochanan.  Both  were  distinguished  teachers,  but  very  poor. 
In  questions  of  the  law  they  were  inclined  to  rigorous  views. 

6.  R.  Abbahu  of  Caesarea,  disciple  of  R.  Jochanan,  friend  and 
colleague  of  R.  Ame  and  R.  Assi,  was  a  man  of  great  wealth  and  of 
a  liberal    education.      He  had   a  thorough  knowledge    of    the    Greet 


*    See  Tosaphoth  Chullin  19a. 


46  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

language,  and  favored  Greek  culture.  Being  lield  in  liigh  esteem  by  the 
Roman  authorities,  he  had  great  political  influence.  He  seems  to  have 
had  frequent  controversies  with  the  teachers  of  Christianity  in 
Caesarea.  Besides  being  a  prominent  teacher  whose  legal  opinions  are 
quoted  in  all  parts  of  the  Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Talmud,  he  was  a 
very  popuhir  lecturer. 

7.  E.  Zeira  {or  Zero)  was  a  Babylonian  and  a  disciple  of  Rab  Juda  bar 
Jecheskel,  but  dissatisfied  with  the  hair  splitting  method  prevailing  in 
the  academies  of  his  native  country,  he  emigrated  to  Palestine  where 
he  attended  the  lectures  of  R.  Elazar  b.  Pedath  in  Tiberias,  and  tried, 
in  vain,  to  unlearn  liis  former  method  of  study.  Having  been  ordained 
as  Rabbi,  he  became  one  of  tlie  authorities  in  Palestine  together  with 
R.  Ame,  R.  Assi  and  R.  Abbahu. 

B.  Babylonian  Amoraim. 

1.  Rah  Huna  (born  212,  died  297)  was  a  disciple  of  Rab,  whom, 
after  Mar  Wamuel's  death,  he  succeeded  as  president  of  the  academy  in 
Sura.  In  this  office  he  was  active  for  forty  years.  He  employed  fifteen 
assistants  to  repeat  and  explain  his  lectures  to  his  800  disciples. 
Highly  revered  for  his  great  learning  and  his  noble  character,he  enjoyed 
an  undisputed  authority  to  which  even  the  Palestinian  teachers  R.  Ame 
and  R.  Assi  voluntarily  subordinated  themselves. 

2.  Rab  Juda  bar  Jecheskel,  generally  called  simply  R.  Juda 
(or  Jehuda),  was  a  disciple  of  Rab  and  also  of  Samuel.  The  latter 
teacher,  whose  peculiar  method  he  adopted  and  developed,  used  to 
characterize  liim  by  the  epithet  my^  "the  acute".  Ho  founded  the 
academy  in  Pumbaditha,  but  after  R.  Huna's  death  lie  was  chosen  as 
his  successor  (Resh  Methibta)  at  Sura,  where  after  two  years  (299)  he 
died  in  an  advanced  age. 

3.  Rab  Chinda  (or  Cliasda)  belonged  to  the  younger  disciples  of 
Rab  after  whose  death  he  attended  also  the  lectures  of  R.  Huna.  But 
from  the  latter  teacher  lie  soon  separated  on  account  of  a  misunder- 
standing between  them  and  establislied  a  scliool  of  his  own.  At  tlie 
same  time,  he;  was  one  of  the  Judges  in  Sura.  After  Rab  Juda's  death 
R.  Chisda,  tliough  already  above  80  years  old,  became  liead  of  the 
academy  in  Sura  and  remained  in  this  ofiice  for  about  ten  years 

4.  Rah  Shesheth,  a  disciple  of  Rab  and  Samuel,  was  member  of 
the  court  in  Nahardea.     After  the  destruction  of  that  city  he   went  to 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mish.va.  47 

Mechuza;  later  he  settled  in  Silhi  where  he  founded  an  academy. 
Being  blind,  he  had  to  rely  upon  his  powerful  memory.  He  was 
R.  Cliisda's  opponent  in  the  Halacha,  and  disapproved  the  liair  splitting 
dialectical  method  which  had  come  in  vogue  among  the  followers  of 
Rab  Juda  in  Pumbaditha. 

5.  Rab  Naehiaan  b.  Jacob,  called  simply  Rab  Nachman,  was  a 
prominent  disciple  of  Mar  Sanuel.  By  his  father-in-law,  the  exilarch 
Abba  bar  Abulia,  he  was  appointed  chief  justice  in  Nahardea.  After 
Mar  Samuel's  death  he  succeeded  him  as  rector  of  the  academy  in  that 
city.  When  two  yeai's  later  (259)  the  city  of  Naliardea  was  destroyed, 
R.  Nachman  settled  in  Shechan-Zib.  He  is  regarded  as  a  great 
authority  especially  in  the  rabbinical  jurisprudence  in  which  he 
established  many  imp) r taut  principles.  Among  others,  he  originated 
the  rabbinical  oath  termed  nO'H  0^132^.  that  is,  the  purging  oath 
imposed  in  a  law  suit  on  the  claimee  even  in  cases  of  general  denial 
on  nis  part  (^^n  1D13). 

Of  other  teacliers  belonging  to  this  generation  who,  though  not 
standing  at  the  head  of  the  leading  academies,  are  often  quoted  in 
the  Talmud,  the  following  must  be  noted: 

a.  Rabba  bar  bar  Chana  who  was  a  Babylonian  and  son  of  Abba 
bar  Chana.  After  having  attended  the  academy  of  R.  Joclianan  in 
Palestine,  he  returned  to  his  native  country  where  he  frequently 
reported  the  opinions  of  his  great  teacher.  He  is  also  noted  for  the 
many  allegorical  narratives  ascribed  to  him  in  tlie  Talmud, 

b.  Ulla  (b.  Ishmael)  was  a  Palestinian  who  frequently  travelled 
to  Babylonia  where  he  finally  settled  and  died.  Although  without  the 
title  of  Rabbi  or  Rab,  he  was  regarded  as  a  distinguished  teacher  whose 
opinions  and  reports  are  often  mentioned. 


4:8  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

The  third  Generation  of  Amoraim. 
§  22. 

A.     Palestinian  (320-359).  B.     Babylonian  (320-375). 

1.   R.  Jeremiah.  i    i.  Rabba  bar  Huna. 


2.  R.  Jonah. 

3.  R.  Jose. 


2.  Rabba  bar  Nachniani. 

3.  Rab  Joseph  (bar  Cliiya). 

4.  Abaye. 

5.  Raba. 

6.  Rab  Nachman  bar  Isaac. 

7.  Rab  Pai)a. 

Remarks  and  Biographical  Sketches. 
A.     Palestinian  Amoraim. 

The  patriarcli  of  tliis  period  was  Hillel  II  who  inciodurerl  the  fi.ved 
Jewish  calendar. 

In  consequence  of  the  persecutions  and  the  banishment  of  several 
religious  teachers  under  the  emperors  Constantin  and  Constantius,  tlie 
Palestinian  academies  entirely  decayed.  The  only  teachers  of  some 
prominenc;e  are  the  following: 

1.  R.  Jeremiah  was  a  Babylonian  and  dis(;iple  of  R.  Zeira  whom 
he  followed  to  Palestine.  In  his  younger  days,  when  still  in  his  native 
country,  he  indulged  in  propounding  puzzling  questions  of  trifling 
casuistry  by  which  he  probably  intended  to  ridicule  the  subtile  method 
prevailing  among  some  of  the  contemporary  teachers,  and  on  this 
account  he  was  expelled  from  the  academy.  In  the  holy  land  he  was 
more  appreciated  and  after  the  death  of  R.  Abbahu  and  R.  Zeira  was 
acknowledged  as  the  only  authority  in  that  country. 

2.  R.  Jonah  was  a  disciple  of  R.  Ila  (Hila)  and  of  R.  Jeremiah. 
His  opinions  are  frequently  quoted  especially  in  the  Palestinian  Tal- 
mud. 

3.  R.  Jose  (bar  Zabda),  colleague  of  the  just  mentioned  R.  Jonah, 
was  one  of  the  last  rabbinical  authorities  in  Palestine. 

It  is  j)robable  that  the  compilation  of  the  Palestinian  Talmud 
was  accomplished  about  that  time,  though  it  cannot  be  stated  by  whom. 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mtshna.  49 

B.  Babylonian  Amoraim. 

1.  Rnhba  (or  Rab  Abba)  bar  Hiuia  was  not,  as  erroneously 
su[)pose(l  by  some,  the  son  of  the  exilarch  Huna  Mari,  but  of  Rab 
Hiina,  the  disciple  and  successor  of  Rab.  After  the  death  of  K.  Chisda 
(309)  lie  succeeded  him  in  the  dignity  of  president  of  the  academy  in 
Sura.  Under  his  presidency,  lasting  13  years,  this  academy  was 
eclipsed  by  that  of  Pumbaditha,  and  after  his  death  it  remained  deserted 
for  about  fifty  years  until  Rab  Ashe  restored  it  to  its  former  glory. 

2.  Rahba  bar  Nachmani,  in  the  Talmud  called  simply  Rabba,  was 
born  370  and  died  330.  He  was  a  disciple  of  Rab  Huna,  Rab  Juda  and 
Rab  Chisda,  and  displayed  from  his  youth  great  dialectical  powers  on 
account  of  which  he  was  characterized  as  "the  uprooter  of  mountains". 
Selected  as  head  of  the  academy  of  Pumbaditha,  he  attracted  large 
crowds  of  hearers  by  his  ingenious  method  of  teaching.  In  his  lectures 
which  commented  on  all  parts  of  the  Mishna  he  investigated  the 
reason  of  the  laws  and  made  therefrom  logical  deductions.  Besides, 
he  tried  to  reconcile  seeming  diffei-ences  between  the  Mishna,  the 
Baraithoth  and  the  traditional  teachings  of  later  authorities.  He  also 
liked  to  propound  puzzling  i^roblems  of  the  law  in  order  to  test  and 
sharpen  the  mental  powers  of  his  disciples.  A  charge  having  been 
made  against  him  by  the  Persian  government  that  many  of  his 
numerous  hearers  attended  his  lectures  in  order  to  evade  the  jioll-tax, 
he  fled  from  Pumbaditha  and  died  in  solitude. 

3.  Rab  Joseph  (bar  Chiya)  was  a  disciple  of  Rab  Juda  and  Rab 
Shesheth,  and  succeeded  his  friend  Rabba  in  the  dignity  of  president 
of  the  academy  in  Pumbadita,  after  having  once  before  been  elected 
for  this  office  which  he  declined  in  favor  of  Rab!)a.  On  account  of  his 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  sources  of  the  Law,  to  which  he  attached 
more  importance  than  to  ingenious  deductions,  he  was  called  Sinai. 
Besides  being  a  great  authority  in  the  rabbinical  law,  he  devoted 
himself  to  the  Targum  of  the  Bible,  especially  of  the  prophetical  books. 
In  his  old  age  he  became  blind.  He  died  in  the  year  333  after  hav  ing 
presided  over  the  academy  of  Pumbaditha  only  for  three  years. 

4.  Abaye,  surnamed  Nachmani  (b.  280.  d.  338),  was  a  son  Kaylil 
and  a  pupil  of  his  uncle  Rabba  bar  Nachmani,  and  of  Rab  Joseph.  He 
was  highly  esteemed  not  only  for  his  profound  knowledge  of  the  law 
and  his  mastership  in  Talmudical   dialectics,  but  also  for  his  integrity 


50  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

and  gentleness.  After  Rab  Joseph's  death  he  was  selected  as  head  of 
the  academy  in  Pumbaditha,  but  under  his  administration  which  lasted 
about  five  years,  the  number  of  hearers  in  that  academy  decreased 
considerably,  as  his  more  talented  colleague  Raba  had  founded  a  new 
academy  in  Machuza  which  attracted  greater  crowds  of  pupils. 
Under  these  two  Amoraim  the  dialectical  method  of  the  Babylonian 
teachers  reached  the  highest  development.  Their  discussions,  which 
mostly  concern  some  very  nice  distinctions  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Mishna  in  order  to  reconcile  conflicting  passages,  fill  the  pages  of  the 
Talmud,  i  In  their  differences  concerning  more  practical  questions 
the  opinion  of  Raba  generally  prevails,  so  that  later  authorities 
pointed  out  only  six  cases  in  which  the  decision  of  Abaye  was  to  be 
adopted  against  that  of  his  rival.  ^ 

5.  Haba  was  the  son  of  Joseph  b.  Chama  in  Machuza.  He  was 
born  299  and  died  353.  In  his  youth  he  attended  the  lectures  of  Rab 
Nachman  and  of  R.  Chisda.  Later,  he  and  Abaye  were  fellow-students 
in  the  academy  of  Rabba  bar  Nachmani.  Here  he  developed  his 
dialectical  powers  by  which  he  soon  surpassed  all  his  contemporaries. 
He  opened  an  academy  in  Machuza  which  attracted  a  great  number  of 
students.  After  Abaye's  death  this  academy  supplanted  that  in  Pumba- 
ditha and  during  Raba's  lifetime  became  almost  the  only  seat  of  learn- 
ing in  Babylonia.  His  controversies  with  his  contemporaries,  especially 
with  his  rival  colleague  Abaye,  are  very  numerous.  "Wherever  an 
opinion  of  Abaye  is  recorded  in  the  Talmud,  it  is  almost  always  fol- 
lowed by  the  contrary  view  and  argument  of  Raba. 

Q.Rab  Nachniiti  b.  Isaac  was  a  discipl  >  of  Rab  Nachman  (b. 
Jacob)  and  afterwards  an  officer  as  Resh  Calhi  in  the  acailemy  of 
Raba.  After  the  deatli  of  the  latter  he  was  made  president  of  the 
academy  in  Pumbadilha  which  now  resumed  its  former  rank.  In  this 
capacity  he  remainetl  only  four  years  (352-356)  and  left  no  remarkable 
traces  of  his  activity.     Still  less  significant   was    tlie  activity  of  his 


'  The  often  very  subtile  argtunentations  of  these  two  teachers 
became  so  proverbial  that  the  plirase  {<2"11  "3X1  nVIH  "the  critical 
riuestions  of  Abaye  and  Kal)a"  is  used  in  the  Talmud  as  a  signification 
of  acute  discussions  and  minute  investigations,  so  in  Succah  28a. 

■'  D"J"p  ^''^'a.  ""•nNT  iTTlllD  NnD!?n  Haba  Metzia  21b;  Sanhedrin 
27a;  Erubiii  15a;  Kidd.  52a:  Gittin  34a. 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mishna. 


51 


successor  R.  Chama  from  Nahardea  who  held  tlie  office  for  twenty  one 
years  (3rj6-377). 

7.  Rab  Papa  (bar  Chanan),a  disciple  of  Abaye  and  Raba,  founded 
a  new  school  in  Nares,  in  the  vicinity  of  Sura,  over  which  he  presided 
for  nineteen  years  (354-375).  He  adopted  tlie  dialectical  method  of  his 
former  teachers  without  possessing  their  ingenuity  and  their  inde- 
pendence, and  consequently  did  not  give  satisfaction  to  those  of  his 
hearers  who  had  formerly  attended  the  lectures  of  Raba.  One  of 
his  peculiarities    was  that  he   frecjuently   refers  to  i)opular    proverbs 

Ck^x  noK). ' 

The  fourth  Generation  op  Bap.vlonian  Amoraim  (37o-4'2T). 

§  -23. 


C.  ^^ahardea. 
Ameraar. 


A.   Sui-a.  B.   Pumbaditha. 

1.    Rab  Ashe.  1.  Rab  Zebid. 

2.  Rab  Dime. 

3.  Ral'ram. 

4.  Rab  Cahana. 
.5.  Mar  Zutra. 


Remarks  and  Biof^raphical  Sketches. 

A.  Rab  Ashe,  (son  of  Simai  bar  Ashe)  was,  at  tlie  age  of  twenty, 
made  president  of  the  reopened  academy  of  Sura,  after  the  death 
of  Rab  Papa,  and  held  this  office  for  lifty  two  years.  Under  his 
presidency,  this  academy,  which  had  been  deserted  since  the  time  of 
Rabbabar  Huna, regained  its  former  glory  with  which  Rab  had  invested 
it.  Combining  the  profundity  of  knowledge  which  fermerly  prevailed 
in  thisacademy  with  the  dialectic  methods  developed  in  that  of  Pumba- 
ditha, he  was  generally  recognized  as  the  ruling  authority,  so  that  liis 
contemporaries  called  him  by  the  distinguishing  title  of  Rabbana  (our 
teacher).     Invested  with  this  great  authority,  Rab  Ashe  was  enabled 


»  This  Rab  Papa  must  not  be  mistaken  for  an  elder  teacher  by 
the  same  name,  who  had  ten  sons,  all  well  versed  in  the  law,  one  of 
whom,  Rafrani,  became  head  of  the  academy  of  Pumbaditha  in  the 
following  generation.  Neither  is  Rab  Papa  identical  with  Rab  Paui. 
a  distinguished  lawyer  who  flourished  in  a  former  generation. 


52  HSTORICAL  AND  LITERARY    iNTROrUCTlON. 

to  assume  the  task  of  sifting,  arranging  and  compiling  the  immense 
material  of  traditions,  coQimentaries  and  discussions  on  the  Mishna 
which,  dui-ing  the  two  preceding  centuries,  had  accumulated  in  the 
Babylonian  academies.  In  the  compilation  and  revision  of  this  gigantic 
work  which  is  embodied  in  the  Gemara,  he  was  occupied  for  over 
half  a  century,  and  still  he  did  not  complete  it  entirely  but  this  was 
done,  after  his  death,  by  his  disciples  and  successors. 

B.  During  the  long  period  of  Rab  Ashe's  activity  at  the  academy 
in  Sura,  the  following  teachers  presided  successively  over  the  academy 
in  Pumbaditha. 

1.  Rah  Zebid  (b.  Oshaya)  wlio  succeeded  Rab  Chama  and  held 
the  office  for  eight  years.  (;i77-385). 

2.  Rab  Dime  (b.  Chinena)  from  Nahardea,  presiding  only  for 
three  years  (385-388). 

3.  Rafravi  bar  Papa  the  elder,  in  his  youth  a  disciple  of  Raba, 
succeeded  R.  Dime  (388-394). 

4.  Rab  Cahana  (b.  Tachlifa),  likewise  a  disciple  of  Raba,  was 
one  of  the  former  teachers  of  R.  Ashe.  In  an  already  advanced  age 
he  was  made  president  of  the  academy  of  Pumbaditha,  and  died  in  the 
year  411,  This  Rab  Cahana  must  not  be  mistaken  for  two  other 
teachers  of  the  same  name,  one  of  wliom  had  been  a  distinguished 
disciple  of  Rab,  and  the  other  (Rab  Cahana  b.  Manyome)  a  disciple  of 
Rab  Juda  b.  Jecheskel. 

").  Mar  Zutra  who,  according  to  some  historians,  succeeded  R»b 
('aliuna  as  rector  of  the  school  in  Pimibaditha  (411-414)  is  probaUj^ 
identical  with  Mar  Zutra  b.  Mare,  who  shortly  afterwards  held  flie 
higli  office  as  Exilarch.  In  the  rectorship  of  Pumbaditha  he  was  8ic_ 
cecded  by  Rah  Acha  bar  Raba  (414-419):  and  the  latter  by  Rab  Oebha 
(419-433). 

C.  Amemar,  a  friend  of  Rab  Ashe,  was  a  distinguished  j'dge 
and  teacher  in  Nahardea.  When  his  former  teacher  Rab  Dime  beame 
president  of  the  academy  in  Pumbaditha,  he  succeeded  Inni  in  the  n^tor- 
shipof  that  of  Nalianlea  from  390  to  about  432.  With  him  thittonce 
BO  celebrated  seat  of  learning  passed  out  of  existence. 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mishna.  53 

The  fifth  Generation  of  Babylonian  Amoraim  (421-468). 

§  '-24. 

B.     Pumbaditha. 


A.     Sura. 

1 .  Mar  Jemar  (Mareniar 

2.  Rab  Ide  bar  Abin. 

3.  Mar  bar  Rab  Ashe. 

4.  Rab  Acha  of  Difte. 


1.  Rafram  II. 

2.  Reclmmai. 

3.  Rab  Sama  b.  Rabba. 


Remarks  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

A.  1.  Mar  Jemar  (contracted  to  Maremar),  who  enjoyed  high 
esteem  with  the  leading  teachers  of  his  time,  succeeded  his  colleague 
and  friend  Kab  Ashe  in  the  presidency  of  the  academy  in  Sura,  but 
held  this  office  only  for  about  five  years  (437-432). 

5.  Rab  Ide  (or  Ada)  bar  Abin  became,  after  Mar  Jemar's  death, 
president  of  the  academy  at  Sura  and  held  this  office  for  about  twenty 
years  (432-452).  He  as  well  as  his  predecessor  continued  the  compilation 
of  the  Talmud  which  Rab  Ashe  had  commenced. 

3.  Mar  bar  Rab  Ashe,  whose  surname  was  Tabyome,  and  who, 
for  some  unknown  reasons,  had  been  passed  over  in  the  election  of  a 
successor  to  his  father,  was  finally  made  president  of  the  academy  in 
Sura  and  filled  this  office  for  thirteen  years  (^455-468).  In  his  frequent 
discussions  with  contemporary  authorities  he  exhibits  independence  of 
opinion  and  great  faculties  of  mind. 

4.  Rab  Acha  of  Difte,  a  prominent  teacher,  was  on  the  point  of 
being  elected  as  head  of  the  academy  of  Sura,  but  was  finally  defeated 
by  Mar  bar  Rab  Ashe  who  aspired  to  that  office  which  his  father  had 
so  gloriously   filled  for  more  than  half  a  century. 

B.  The  academy  of  Pumbaditha  which  had  lost  its  earlier  influence, 
had  during  this  generation  successively  three  presidents,  of  whose 
activity  very  little  is  known,  namely: 

1.  Rafram  II  who  succeeded  Rab  Gebihah,  from  433  to  443. 

2.  Rab  Rechumai,  from  443-456. 

3.  Rab  Sama  b.  Rabba,  from  456-471. 

Toward  the  end  of  this  generation,  the  activity  of  both  academies 
was  almost  paralyzed  by  the  terrible  persecutions  which  the  Persian 
King  Fir  11  z  instituted   against  the  Jews  and  their  religion. 


54  Htstoricai.  WD  Literary  Introduction. 

The  sixth  and  last  Grneration  of  Babylonian  Amoraim 
(468-500). 

§  25. 


A.     Sura. 

1 .  Rabba  Thospia  (or  Tosfaah). 

2.  Rabina. 


B.     Pumbaditha. 
Rab  Jose. 


Remarks  and  Biographical  Sketches. 

A.  1.  Rabbo  of  TJiospia  '  succeeded  Mar  bar  Rab  Ashi  as  rector 
of  the  Suran  academy  just  at  the  time  when  the  Persian  King  Firuz 
had  ordered  the  Jewish  jurisdiction  to  be  abolished  and  the  academical 
assemblies  to  be  prohibited.  It  is  but  natural  that  under  such  circum- 
stances the  academical  activity  of  this  Rabbi  which  lasted  only  about 
six  years  could  not  amount  to  much. 

2.  Rabina  (contraction  of  Rab  Abina)  bar  Huna,^  who  succeeded 
Rabba  of  Thospia,  entered  his  office  which  he  held  from  488  to  499. 
under  more  favorable  circumstances,  since  the  persecution  had  ceased 
after  the  death  of  Firuz  and  the  academies  were  reopened.  He  conse- 
quently developed  a  great  activity,  the  object  of  which  was  to  complete 
and  close  the  compilation  of  the  Talmud  begun  by  Rab  Aslii.  In  this 
task  he  was  assisted  by  Rab  Jose,  the  school  head  of  P)iinbaditha,an(l 
by  some  associates. 

With  the  close  of  the  Tulmu(]  and  tlie  death  of  Rabina  (499)  ended 
the  ]K'riod  of  the  Amoraim.  Tlie  Babylonian  teaclif^rs  who  flourished 
during  the  subsecjuent  half  century  are  called  -Safton/WH,  (»{<1UD  p2n). 
They  did  not  assume  the  authority  to  contradict  the  decisions  established 
by  tlic  Amoraim,  but  merely  ventured  to  express  an  opinion  (130,  to 
reason,  think,  suppose,  opine)  and  to  fix  the  final  decision  incases  where 


'  Regarding  the  correct  name  and  native  place  of  tliis  Rabbi  see 
Leopold  Low's  "Lebensalter"  j).  370,  note  54,  and  Neubauer  G6ogr. 
d\i  Talm.,  p.  332. 

-  This  bead  of  tin-  Surjin  Academy  is  by  chrono^^raphers  usually  cal- 
led Habina,  II,  in  order  to  distinguish  him  from  a  former  teacher  Rabina 
who  was  a  disciple  of  Raba  and  flourished  in  the  fourth  generation. 
In  the  Talmud,  both  of  them  are  called  simply  Rabina,  and  only  from 
the  connection  it  is  to  be  seen  whether  it  refers  to  that  elder  teacher 
or  to  the  last  of  the  Anu)raiin. 


The  Expounders  of  the  Mishna.  55 

their  predecessors,  the  Amoraim,  disagreed.  They  gave  the  Talmud 
a  finishing  touch  by  adding  those  final  decisions,  also  numerous, 
especially  Agadic,  passages. 

B.  Rab  Jose  presided  over  the  academy  in  Pumbaditha  475-520. 
As  Rabina  was  the  last  Amora  for  Sura,  so  Rab  Jose  was  thel  ast  for 
Pumbaditha.  Flourishing  still  for  a  number  of  years  after  the  close  of 
the  Talmud, he  was  at  the  same  time  the  first  of  the  Saboraim,and  must 
be  considered  as  the  most  prominent  among  them. 

Of  Rab  Jose's  contemporaries  and  successors  who  like  himself 
formed  the  connecting  link  between  the  period  of  Amoraim  and  that 
of  the  Saboraim,  and  whose  opinions  and  controversies  are  still  recorded 
in  the  Talmud,  the  following  two  must  be  mentioned:  -Rab  Achai  h. 
Huna  and  Rah  Samuel  h.  Abbahu, 


CHAPTER  V. 

T  11  E     G  E  M  A  f{  A. 

Classification  of  its  contents  into  IIalacha  and  Agada. 

§  26. 

Tne  collection  of  the  commentaries  and  discussions  of  the 
Amoraim  on  the  Mishna  is  termed  Gemara.  This  term,  derived 
from  the  verb  "iD3  which  in  Hebrew  means  to  finish^  to  complete^ 
and  in  the  Aramaic  also  to  leani^  to  teach^  signifies  either  the 
completion^  the  supplement  (to  the  Mishna),  or  is  identical  with 
the  word  Talmud  which  is  often  used  in  its  place,  meaning,  the 
teaching,  the  study. 

Besides  being  a  discursive  commentary  on  the  Mishna,  the 
Gemara  contains  a  vast  amount  of  more  or  less  valuable  mate- 
rial which  does  not  always  have  any  close  connection  with  the 
Mishna  text,  as  legal  reports,  historical  and  biographical  infor- 
mations, religious  and  ethical  maxims  and  homiletical  remai'ks. 

'I'lic  whole  sul)jcct  matter  embodied  in  the  Gemara  is 
generally  classified   into  Halacha  and  Agada. 

To  Halacha '  belongs  that  which  has  bearing  upon  tne  law, 
hence  all  cxi)ositions,  discussions  and  repoi-ts  which  liavc  the 
object  of  explaining,  establishing  and  determining  legal  princii)- 
les  and  i)rovisions.  The  principal  branches  of  the  Halacha  are 
indicated  by  the  names  of  the  six  divisions  of  the  Mishna,  and 
l)y  those  of  the  Masechtotli  belonging  to  each,  division.  See 
above  pages  0-14. 

The  Agada'  comprises  every  thing  not  liaving  the  character 

•  Halacha  (riD^n)  nicniis  ciisiom,  usage  j)r(ictic(';  thon,  an 
adopted  ride,  a  traditiotial  hnr.  In  ji  more  extended  meaning,  the 
term  ajtplies  to  matters  l)earing  upon  that  law. 

■■'  A<j(uhi  or  A<i(jadii  (mJN  ,xmJX  ,>T\iT\,  derived  from  liJ  wliich 
ju  the  Hebrew  IlijiJiU  or  Araniaie  Aphvl  form  sij^nifies  to  narrate,  to 
tell,  to  communicate)  means  tliat  wliicli  is  related,  a.  tale,  a  saying,  an 
individual  uttt^rance  which  claims  no  bindin;;;  authority.  Regarding 
this  term,  see  W.  Bacher'H  learned  and  exhaustive  article,  "The  origin 
of  the  word  Hagada  (Agada)"  in  tlie  Jewihli  Qiuirterly  Review  (London) 


The  Gemara.  57 

of  Halacha,  hence  all  historical  records,  all  legends  and  par- 
ables, all  doctrinal  and  ethical  teachings  and  all  free  and  nnre- 
strained  interpretations  of  Scriptnre. 

According  to  its  ditlercnt  contents  and  character,  the 
Agada  may  be  divided  into: 

1.  Exci^ctical  Agada,  giving  plain  or  homiletical  and  al- 
legorical explanations  of  Biblical  passages. 

2.  Dot^matical  Agada,  treating  of  (iod's  attrributes  and 
providence,  of  creation,  of  revelation,  of  reward  and  i)unishnient, 
of  future  life,  of  Messianic  time,  etc. 

3.  7t//z/Vrt!/ Agada,  containing  aphorisms,  nuixiins,  proverbs, 
fables,  sayings  intending  to  teach  and  illustrate  certain  moral 
duties. 

4.  Historical  Agada,  reporting  traditions  and  legends 
concerning  the  lives  of  bil>lical  and  i)ost-biblical  i)ersons  or  con- 
cerning national  and  general  history. 

5.  Mystical  Agada,  refering  to  Cabala,  angelology,  demo- 
nology,  astrology,  magical  cures,  interpretation  of  dreams,  etc. 

6.  Miscellaneous  Agada,  containing  anecdotes,  observa- 
tions, practical  advices,  and  occassional  references  to  various 
branches  of  ancient  knowledge  and  sciences. 

Agadic  passages  are  often,  by  the  way,  interspersed  among 
matters  of  Halacha,  as  a  kind  of  diversion  and  recreation  after 
the  mental  exertion  of  a  tiresome  investigation  or  a  minute  dis- 
cussion on  a  dry  legal  subject.  Sometimes,  however,  the  Agada 
appears  in  larger  groups,  outweighing  the  Halacha  matter 
with  which  it  is  loosely  connected;  f.  i.  Berachoth,  54a-64a; 
Sabbath  30a-o3b;  Megilla  lOb-Ha;  Gittin  55b-58b;  (Hb-TOa; 
Sota  9a-14a;  B.  Bathra  14b-na;  73a-76a;  Sanhedrin,  Perek 
Chelek. 

There  arc  two  coniiiilations  of  the  Gemara  which  differ  from 
each  other  in  language  as  well  as  in  contents;  the  one  made  in 
Palestine  is  called  Jentshalmi^  the  Jerusalem  Genmra or  Talmud; 


Vol  IV,  pp.  406-439.  As  to  fuller  particulars  concerning  Halaclia  and 
Agada,  see  Zunz'  G.  Vortraege  pp.  57-61  and  83  sq.;  also  Hamburger's 
Real  Encyclopadie  II,  the  articles  Halacha  aud  Agada. 


58  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

the  other  originating  in  Babylonia  is  called  Babli^    the  Baby- 
lonian Gemara  or  Talmud: 

Compilation  of  Jerushalmi,     The  Palestinian  Talmud. 
■      §  2T. 

As  no  academy  existed  in  Jerushalem  after  the  destruction 
of  the  second  temple,  the  customar}'  appellation  Jeriisalon  Tal- 
mud is  rather  a  misnomer.  More  correct  is  the  appellation  the 
Palestinian  Talmud  ('?S"lD"'  pK  I'sSl)  or  the  Gemara  of  the 
teachers  of  the  West  (s'znytS  "'iDl  Sn!2:i). 

,  Maimonides  in  the  introduction  to  his  Mishna  commentary 
ascribes  the  authorship  of  the  Palestinian  Talmud  to  the  celebrat- 
ed teacher  R.  Jochanan  who  flourished  in  the  third  century. 
This  statement,  if  literally  taken,  cannot  be  correct,  since  so 
many  of  tlie  teachers  quoted  in  that  Talmud  are  known  to  have 
flourished  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  R.  Jochanan.  This 
celebrated  Amora  may,  at  the  utmost,  have  given  the  first 
impulse  to  such  a  collection  of  commentaries  and  discussions  on 
the  Mishna,  which  was  continued  and  completed  by  his  succes- 
sors in  the  academy  of  Tiberias.  In  its  present  shape  the  work 
is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century.  Some  modern 
scholars  assign  its  final  compilation  even  to  a  still  later  period 
namely  after  the  close  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  i 

The  Palestinian  Gemara,  as  before  us,  extends  only  over 
thirty  nine  of  the  sixty  three  Masechtoth  contained  in  the 
Mishna,  iiamolly  all  Masechtoth  of  Seder  Zoraim,  Seder  Moed, 
iVashimand  Nczikin  with  the  exception  of  E(hiyoth  and  Aboth. 
But  it  lias  iioiio  of  the  Masechtoth  belonging  to  Seder  Kodashim, 
and  of  those  belonging  to  Seder  Teharoth  it  treats  only  of  Ma- 
secheth  Nidda.     (see  above  pages  12-14). 

Some  of  its  Masechtoth   arc  detective;   thus  the  last  four 

'  Critical  researches  on  this  subject  are  found  in  (Jeiger's  Jued. 
Zeitschrift  f.  Wifisenschaft  1870;  Z.  Frankel  Mebo,  p.  46  sq.  and  in 
Wiesner's  (iibcath   JeruHchalaim    (Vienna  1872). 

I.  H.  Weiss  (Dor  Dor  1 1 1,  j).  1 14  sq.)  regards  R.  Jose  (bar  Zabda)  who 
was  a  colleague  of  R.  Jonali  and  one  of  the  last  authorities  in  Palestine, 
as  the  very  comj)iler  of  the  Pal.  Tahnud  which  in  the  following 
generation  was  completed  by  R.  Jose  bar   Pun  (Abun). 


The  Gemara  59 

Perakim  of  Sa])bath  and  the  last  Pcrek  of  Maccoth  are  wanting. 
Of  the  ten  Perakim  belonging  to  Masecheth  Nidda  it  has  only 
the  first  three  Perakim  and  a  few  lines  of  the  fourth. 

There  are  some  indications  that  elder  commentators  were 
acquainted  with  portions  of  the  Palestinian  Gremara  which  are 
now  missing,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  that  Gemara  origin- 
ally extended  to  all  or,  at  least,  to  most  of  the  Masechtoth  of 
the  Mishna.  The  loss  of  the  missing  Masechtoth  and  portions 
thereof  may  be  explained  partly  by  the  many  persecutions  which 
interrupted  the  activity  of  the  Palestinian  academies,  partly  by 
the  circumstance  that  the  Pelestinian  Gemara  did  not  command 
that  general  attention  and  veneration  which  was  bestowed  on 
the  Babylonian  Gemara. 

Compilation  of  Babli,     the  Babylonian  Talmud. 
§  28. 

The  compilation  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  is  generally  as- 
cribed to  Rab  Ashe  who  for  more  than  fifty  years  (375-427) 
officiated  as  head  of  the  academy  in  Sura.  It  is  stated  that  it 
took  him  about  thirty  years  to  collect,  sift  and  arrange  the  im- 
mense material  of  this  gigantic  work.  During  the  remaining 
second  half  of  his  activity  he  revised  once  more  the  whole  work 
and  made  in  it  many  corrections.  This  corrected  edition  is 
termed  XnriD  S"l"nnO  the  latter  revision^  and  the  former .  t^lTinO 
t<Dp  the  first  revision.  ' 

>     See  Baba  Bathra  fol  157b. 

Those  scholars  who  maintain  that  the  IMishna  was  not  written 
down  by  R.  Jehuda  Hanasi,  but  that  he  merely  arranged  it  orally 
(see  above  p.  5,  note),  maintain  the  same  in  regard  to  Rab  Ashe's 
compilation  of  the  Gemara,  without  being  able  to  state  when  and  by 
whom  it  was  actually  commited  to  writing.  Against  this  opinion  it 
has  been  properly  argued  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  absolutely 
impossible  for  a  work  so  voluminous,  so  variegated  in  contents  and  so 
full  of  minute  and  intricate  discussions,  as  the  Talmud,  to  have  been 
orally  arranged  and  fixed,  and  accurately  transmitted  from  generation 
to  generation.  On  the  strength  of  this  argument  and  of  some  in- 
dications found  in  the  Talmud,  Z.  Frankel  (in  his  Mebo  p.  47)  even 
regards  it  as  very  probable  that  Rab  Ashe  in  compiling  the  Gemara 
made  use  of  some  minor  compilations  which  existed  before  him,  and 
of  some  written  records  and  memoranda  containing  short  abstracts 
of  the  academical  discussions  in  the  preceding  generations.    Collecting 


60  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

But  Rab  Ashe  did  not  succeed  in  tinishing  the  gigantic 
work.  It  was  continued  and  completed  by  his  disciples  and 
successors,  especially  by  the  last  Amoraim  Rabina  II  who  from 
488  to  499  presided  over  the  academy  in  Sura,  and  R.  Jose,  the 
school-head  of  Pumbaditha.  Some  additions  were  made  by  the 
Saboraim,  and  perhaps  even  by  some  still  later  hands. 

The  Gemara  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  covers  only  thirty 
seven  Masechtoth  of  the  Mishna,  namely: 

Of  Zeraiin  only  one,  Berachoth,  ommitting  the  remaining 
ten  Masechtoth; 

Of  Moed  eleven,  ojnitting  only  Shckalim  which  in  our 
Talmud  editions  is  replaced  by  the  Palestinian  Gemara; 

Of  Nashim  all  of  the  seven  Masechtoth  beloning  to  that 
division; 

Of  Nezikin  eight,  omitting  p]duyoth  and  Aboth; 

Of  Kodashim  nine,  omitting  Middoth  and  Kinnim,  In 
Thamid  only  chapters  I.  II.  lY  are  provided  with  Gemara,  but 
not  chapters  III.  V.  VI  and  VII. 

Of  Teharoth    only  Nidda;    omitting  eleven   Masechtoth. 

There  being  no  traces  of  the  Gemara  missing  to  twenty  six 
Masechtoth,  it  is  very  probable  that  this  part  of  the  Gemara 
has  never  been  compiled,  though  those  Masechtoth  have  un- 
doubtedly also  been  discussed  by  the  Babylonian  Amoraim,  as  is 
evident  from  frequent  references  to  them  in  the  Gemara  on  the 
other  Masechtoth.  The  neglect  of  compiling  these  discussions 
may  be  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  those  Masechtoth 
mostly  treat  of  laws  which  had  no  practical  ai)i)lication  outside 
of  Palestine.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  Masechtoth 
of  Zeraiin,  except  lierachoth,   and  those  of  Teharoth,    except 


and  arranging  these  records  he  partly  enlarged  theiu  by  fuller  explan- 
ations, partly  left  them  just  as  he  found  them.  Some  traces  f)f  such 
memoranda,  made  probably  by  K  Ashe's  predecessors,  are  still  found  in 
numerous  passages  of  the  Talmud.  We  refer  to  the  ninemonical 
signs  and  symbols  (D'JD'D)  which  every  now  and  then  are  there  met 
with  (in  brackets)  as  headings  of  discussions  and  indicating  either  the 
names  of  the  teachers  to  be  (juoted  or  tlie  order  of  the  subjects  to 
be  discussed.  A  critical  investigation  on  these  often  very  enigmatic 
SiiiKiiiini  if?  found  in  .I.icoli  BriilTs  jwS  B>-in  Die  Mnemotecluiik  des 
Talmuds  (Vienna  lbG4}. 


TUK   (JlCMARA.  61 

Nidda.  It  was  different  with  the  Maseclitoth  belono:ing  to 
Kodashim  which,  though  treating  of  the  sacrificial  laws,  are  fully 
discussed  in  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  as  it  was  a  prevailing 
opinion  of  the  Rabbis  that  the  merit  of  being  engaged  with  the 
study  of  those  laws  was  tantamount  to  the  actual  performance 
of  the  sacrificial  rites  (See  Talm.  Menachoth  110a). 

The  absence  of  Geinara  on  the  Masechtoth  Eduyoth  and 
Aboth  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  very  nature  of  their 
contents  which  admitted  of  no  discussions. 

The  two  Gemakas  compared  with  each  other. 
§29. 

The  Palestinian  and  the  Babylonian  Gemaras  differ  from  each 
other  in  language  and  style  as  well  as  in  material  and  in  the 
method  of  treating  the  same,   also  in  arrangement. 

As  regards  the  language,  tlie  Palestinian  Gemara  is 
composed  in  the  West  Aramaic  dialect  which  prevailed  in  Pa- 
lestine at  the  time  of  the  Amoraim. 

The  language  of  the  Babylonian  Gemara  is  a  peculiar  idiom, 
being  a  mixture  of  Hebrew  and  East  Aramaic  with  an  occasional 
sprinkling  of  Persian  words.  Quotations  from  Mishna  and 
Baraitha  and  sayings  of  the  elder  Amoraim  are  given  in  the 
original,  that  is,  the  New  Hebrew  (Mishnic)  language,  while 
forms  of  judicial  and  notary  documents  and  popular  legends  of 
later  origin  are  often  given  in  the  Aramaic  idiom. 

Although  the  Palestinian  Gemara  extends  to  two  more  Ma- 
sechtoth than  the  Babylonian,  its  total  material  amounts  only 
to  about  one  third  of  the  latter.  Its  discussions  are  generally 
very  brief  and  condensed,  and  do  not  exhibit  that  dialectic 
acumen  for  which  the  Babylonian  Gemara  is  noted.  The  Agada 
in  the  Palestinian  Gemara  includes  more  reliable  and  valuable 
historical  records  and  references,  and  is,  on  the  whole,  more 
rational  and  sober,  though  less  attractive  than  the  Bal)yl()nian 
Agada  which  generally  appeals  more  to  the  heart  and  imagin- 
ation. But  the  latter,  on  many  occasions,  indulges  too  mucli 
in  gross  exaggerations,  and  its  popular  sayings,  especially  those 
evidently  interpolated  by  later  hands,  have  often  an  admixture 
of  superstitious  views  borrowed  from  the  Persian  surroundings. 


62  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

The  arrangement  of  the  material  in  the  two  Tahniuls  dif- 
fers in  this,  that  in  the  Babylonian,  the  Gemara  is  attached  to 
the  single  paragraphs  (sn^jriD)  of  the  Mishna,  while  in  the 
Palestinian  all  paragraphs  (there  termed  m^^n)  belonging  to 
one  Perek  of  the  Mishna,  are  generally  placed  together  at  the 
head  of  each  chapter.  The  comments  and  discussions  of  the 
Gemara  referring  to  the  successive  paragraphs,  are  then  marked 
by  the  headings  'S  n^bn  '2  TO^n  and  so  on. 

The  two  Gemara  collections  make  no  direct  mention  of 
each  other  as  literary  works.  But  the  names  and  opinions  of 
the  Palestinian  authorities  are  very  often  quoted  in  the  Babyl- 
onian Gemara;  and  in  a  similar  way,  though  not  to  the  same 
extent,  the  Palestinian  Gemara  mentions  the  views  of  the  Bab- 
ylonian authorities.  Tliis  exchange  of  opinions  was  ert'ected 
by  the  numerous  teachers  who  are  known  to  have  emigrated  or 
frequently  travelled  from  the  one  country  to  the  other. 

The  study  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  having  been  trans- 
planted from  its  natiVe  soil  to  North  Africa,  and  the  European 
countries  (especially  Spain,  France,  Germany  and  Poland),  was 
there  most  sedulously  and  religiously  cultivated  in  the  Jewish 
communities, and  gave  rise  to  an  immense  Rabbinical  literature. 
The  Palestinian  Talmud  never  enjoyed  such  general  venoi-ation 
and  attention.  Eminent  Rabbis  alone  were  tlioroughly  convers- 
ant with  its  contents,and  referred  to  it  in  their  writings.  Jt  is 
only  in  modern  times  that  .Jewish  scholars  ha\(MK»me  to  dcn'ote 
more  attention  to  this  Tahniid,  for  tlie  piiri)ose  of  historical  and 
literary  inxesligations. 


CHA.PTER    VI. 

APOCRYPHAL  APPENDICES  TO  THE  TALMUD. 

§  30. 

Besides  the  Masechtoth  contained  in  the  Mishna  and  the 
two  Gemaras,  there  are  several  Maseclitoth  composed  in  the 
form  of  the  Mislina  and  Tosephta,  that  treat  of  ethical,  ritual, 
and  liturgical  precepts.  They  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
the  Talmud  as  the  Apocrypha  to  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Bible.  When  and  by  whom  they  were  composed,  cannot  be  as- 
certained. Of  these  apocryphal  treatises,  the  following  are  ap- 
pended to  our  editions  of  the  Talmud: 

1.  Ahothd'Rahbi  Nathan  ]nj  ''2"n  mzS,  divided  into  41 
chapters  and  a  kind  of  Tosephta  to  the  Mishnic  treatise 
^'Pirkc  Aboth,"  the  ethical  sentences  of  which  are  here  con 
siderably  enlarged  and  illustrated  by  numerous  nari-atives.  In 
its  present  shape,  it  l)elongs  to  the  post-Talmudic  period,  though 
some  elements  of  a  Baraitha  of  R.  Nathan  (who  was  a  Tana 
belonging  to  the  fourth  generation)  may  have  been  embodied 
therein. ' 

2.  Sopherim  D"'1£'1D  the  Scribes, containing  in  21chapters  rules 
for  the  writing  of  the  scrolls  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  of  the  book 
of  Esther  ;  also  Masoretic  rules,  and  liturgical  rules  for  the  ser- 
vice on  Sabbath,  Feast  and  Fast  days.  R.  Asher  already 
expressed  (in  his  Hilchoth  Sepher  Thora)  the  opinion  that  this 
Masecheth  Sopherim  belongs  to  the  period  of  the  Gaonim." 


1  Compare  Zunz,  Gottesd.Voitraege,  p.  108,  sq.— Solomon  Tausik 
published  in  his  uh^  niJ  (Munich  1873)  from  a  Manuscript  of  tlie 
Library  in  Munich  a  recension  of  the  Aboth  d'Rabbi  Nathan  wliich 
differs  considerably  from  that  printed  in  our  Talmud  editions.  The 
latest  edition  of  Aboth  d.  R.  N.  in  two  recensions  from  MSS.  with 
critical  annotations  was  published  by  S.  Schechter  (Vienna  1887). 

*  See  Zunz,  GD.  V.  p.  95,  sq.  The  latest  separate  edition  of  Ma- 
secheth Sopherim  from  a  MS.  and  with  a  German  commentaiy 
was  published  by  Joel  Mueller,  ( Leipsic  1878). 


64  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

3.  Ebel  Rabhathi'^rC'^  hz!^  (the  large  treatise  on  Mourn- 
ing), euphemistically  called  mniitJ'  Semachoth  (Joys),  is 
divided  into  14  chapters,  and  treats,  as  indicated  by  the  title, 
of  rules  and  customs  concerning  burial  and  mourning.  It  is 
not  identical  with  a  treatise  under  the  same  title,  quoted  already 
in  the  Talmud  (Moed  Katon  24a ;  26a  ;*  Kethuboth  28a),  but 
seems  to  be  rather  a  reproduction  of  the  same  witn  later  additions. ') 

4.  Callah  ri'?^  (the  bride,  the  woman  recently  married). 
This  minor  Masechta,  being  likewise  a  reproduction  of  a  Masechta 
by  that  name,  mentioned  already  in  the  Talmund  (Sabbath  114  a; 
Taanith  10b;  Kiddushin  49b;  Jer.  Berachoth,  II,  5.),  treats 
in  one  chapter  of  the  duties  of  chastity  in  marriage  and  in 
general. 

5.  Derech  i^;r/s  |»-|S  ~pT  (the  conduct  of  life),  divided 
mto  11  chapters,  the  first  of  which  treats  of  jn-ohibited  mar- 
riages, and  the  remaining  chapters,  of  ethical,  social  and  religious 
teachings.  References  to  a  treatise  by  that  name,  are  made 
already  in  the  Talmud  (B.  Berachoth  22a  and  Jer.  Sabbath 
VI,  2.) 

6.  Derech  Eretz  Ziita  XiaiT  pS  "["'.T  (the  conduct  of 
life,  minor  treatise),  containing  10  chapters,  replete  with 
rules  and  maxims  of  wisdom." 

7.  Perek  Ha-shalom  Dl^li'n  p^S  (chapter  on  Peace)  consists, 
as  already  indicated  by  the  title,  only  of  one  chapter,  treating 
of  the  importance  of  peacefiilness. 

Rcmark:-Beside  these  apocry])hal  treat  ises  ai)])ended  to  our 
editions  of  the  Talmud  under  the  general  title  ot  r^y^'^  mn^DD 
''Minor  Treatises,"  there  are  seven  lesser  Maseehtoth  which 
were  published  by  Raphael  Kirehheim  from  an  ancient  manu- 
script.    (Frankfort  on  the  Main  1851.) 


•  S(>e  Zunz,  (i.  V.  p.  90,  and  N.  \\\\\\\  "Die  tahn.  Tractate  ul)€>r 
Trauer  uin  Verstorbene  (Jahrlmchor  IQr  Jiid.  (icscliiclite  uiid  Litera- 
tur  I  (Frankfurt  a.  M.)  p.  1-57.  M.  Klotz  just  i)ublislied  "Der  Tabu. 
Tractat  Ebel  Rabbatlii  nach  IlandscliriltoJi  bearbuitet,  iiberzt'tzt  und 
jnit  Anmerkungt'ii  verselien"  Frankf.  on  the  Main,  1893. 

■■'  On  botli  of  these  Maseclitotli  D(!re(;li  Eretz  see  Zunz  GD.  V. 
pp.  110  112.  Sec  also:  Al)r.  TiiuroKi  "l)«u- Talm.  Tractat  Derech  Erez 
Sutta  Kritiscli  bearbeitet,  ubersetzt  und  erlilutert"  (Berlin  IbbO). 


CHAPTER  VII. 

COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  TAL:srFr). 

r,  ,,^    The  necessity  for  such  Commentaries. 

§  31. 

Tho  Talmud  otfers  to  its  stii<](Mits  <2:rcat  diflicultics,  partly 
on  account  of  tlio  peculiar  idiom  in  wiiich  it  is  written  and  which 
IS  intermixed  with  so  numerous,  often  very  mutilated,  foreiji'u 
words  ;  partly  on  account  of  the  extreme  brevity  and  succinct- 
ness of  its  style,  the  frequent  use  of  technical  terms  and  i)hrascs, 
and  mere  allusions  to  matters  discussed  elsewhere  ;  partly 
also,  on  account  of  the  circumstance  that,  in  consequence  of 
elliptical  expressions,  and  in  the  absence  of  all  punctuation  marks, 
question  and  answer,  in  the  most  intricate  discussions,  are  some- 
times so  closely  interwoven,  that  it  is  not  easy  to  discern  at 
once,  where  the  one  ends  and  the  other  begins.  To  meet  all 
these  difficulties,  which  are  often  very  perplexing,  numerous 
commentaries  have  been  written  by  distinguished  Rabbis. 
Some  of  the  commentaries  extend  to  the  whole  Talmud,  or  a 
great  portion  thereof;  others  exclusively  to  the  Mishna,  or  some 
of  its  sections.  The  following  are  the  most  important  com- 
mentaries which  are  usually  printed  in  our  Talmud,  and  in  tlie 
separate  Mishna  editions. 

A.    COMMENTARIES    ON   THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 
§  32. 

1.  The  celebrated  Rabbenu  Chqnand  (y\'^)  of  Kairwan 
(Africa),  flourishing  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century, 
wrote  a  commentary  on  the  greater  portion  of  the  Talmud, 
which  is  often  quoted  by  later  commentators,  and  is  now  printed 
in  the  latest  Talmud  edition  of  Wilna. 

2.  Rashi^'"^^^^  the  prince  of  commentators  is  generally 
called  from  the  initials  of  his  name,  Rabbi  Solomon  Isaaki,  of 
Troyes  (1040 — 11  Of)),  wrote  a  commentary  on  almost  the  whole  of 


6G  HiSTOEICAL  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Baljylonian  Talmud,  which  is  printed  in  all  editions  thereof. 
It  is  a  true  model  of  concise,  clear  and  systematic  commentatiop. 
By  a  fe  \V  plain  words  it  often  sheds  light  upon  the  obscurest 
passages,  and  unravels  the  most  entangled  arguments  of  the 
Talmudical  discussions.  As  if  anticipating  the  slightest  hesita- 
.tion  of  the  unexperienced  student,  it  offers  him  atiio'Ace  the 
needed  explanation,  or  at  least  a  hint  that  leads  him  the  right 
way.  It  has  truly  been  said  that  but  for  this  peerless  comment- 
ary of  Rashi,  the  Babylonian  Talmud  would  have  remained  as 
neglected  as  the  Palestinian.  An  additional  merit  of  that  com- 
mentary is  the  fact  that  it  very  often  establishes  the  correct 
version  of  the  corrupted  Talmud  text.  Such  corrections  are 
generally  headed  by  the  initials  yn  (standing  for  ]rD"li  '•2" 
"thus  we  are  to  read"). 

3.  Supplements  and  additions  to  Rashi's  commentary. 
The  commentary  on  some  Maseclitoth,  not  being  finished  by 
Rashi,  was  completed  in  his  spirit  by  his  relatives  and  disciples. 
His  son-in-law  R.  Jehuda  b.  Nathan  completed  that  on  Maccoth 
from  fol.  19b.;  his  grandson  R.  Samuel  b.  Meir  D"3ti^"i  com- 
])leted  that  on  B.  Bathra  from  fol.  29a.  The  last  mentioned 
author,  besides,  added  his  commentary  to  Rashi's  on  the  last 
Perek  of  Pesachim.  The  missing  commentary  of  Rashi  on  Ned- 
arim  from  fol.  22b.  is  supplemented  by  that  of  his  predecessor, 
the  celebrated  Rabbenu  Gershom.'  To  this  connnentary  on 
Xedarim  two  others  are  added  in  our  Talmud  editions,  one  by 
Uabbenu  Nissim  (j'n)  and  the  other  by  R.  Asher  t^'Kin,  both 
nourishing  in  the  fourteenth  century. 

4.  Tosaphoth  (meaning  Additions)  are  a  collection  of  an- 
notations printed  in  all  Talmud  editions  on  the  exterior  margin 
of  the  page,  while  the  interior  margin  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  Talmud  text  is  generally  assigned  to  Rashi's  commentary. 
They  are  not,  like  the  latter,  a  running  connnentary,  but  rather 
separate  remarks  and  discussions  on  some  passage  of  the  text, 
intended  to  elucidate  its  meaning.  Sometimes  the  explanations 


*  Some  Vjibiiogrniihcu-H  maintain  tliat  also  the  commentary  on 
Nazir  and  MeiUth,  uscrihed  to  liiislii,  does  not  belong- to  him,  but  to 
bis  discijjles. 


Commentaries  on  the  Talmud.  <j7 

given  in  the  commentaries  of  R.  Clianancl  and  Rashi  are 
criticised  and  corrected.  The  latter  of  these  two  commentaries 
is,  byway  of  excellence,  generally  designated  as  Coniros  {Dr\\:>yp 
commentarius).  The  Tosaphoth  often  display  great  acumen  and 
hair-splitting  dialectics  in  finding,  and  again  harmonizing,  ap- 
parent contradictions  between  passages  of  the  Talmud.  Such 
questions  of  contradiction  are  generally  introduced  by  the  phrases : 
nasn  DKl(abbrev.  n'SI)  '  'if  thou  wilt  say  or  object. . ",  or  ntSTi '  'it  ■ 
is  astonishing  that . .",  or  SD'^n  "thou  mayest  say  or  object. .  ' 

or  ntyp  "here  is  the  difficulty  that ,"  and  the  final  solution 

of  the  questioner  difficulty  by'iDl'?  IT^l  (abbr.^t',)  "but  it  may  be 
said  in  answer  to  this " 

The  numerous  authors  of  these  Tosaphoth  (mSDin  ^h^l  The 
Tosaphists,  the  glossarists)  flourished  during  the  12th  and  13th 
centuries  in  France  and  Germany.  To  the  first  among  them  be- 
long the  nearest  relatives  and  disciples  of  Rashi,  namely  his  two 
sons-in-law  R.  Meir  b.  Samuel  and  R.  Jehuda  b.  Nathan  (j'^"''!) ; 
his  grandson  R.  Isaac  b.  Meirj(D''3''-i),R.  Samuel  b.Meir  (D'3tyn)- 
and  R.  Jacob  b.  Meir,  called  Rabbenu  Tam  (ri'l)  and  a  nephew 
of  the  latter,  R.  Isaac  b.  Samuel,  of  Dampierre  (]pTri  ""'n). 

Other  authorities  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Tosaphoth 
are:  R.  Jehuda b.  Isaac,  of  Paris,  called  Sir  Leon  (12th  century); 
R.  Perez  b.  Elias  in  Corbeil  (13th  century).' 

The  Tosaphoth  printed  in  our  Talmud  editions  are 
merely  extracts  of  older  collections,  namely  of  "Tosaphoth 
Sens"by  R.Samson  b.  Abraham  of  Sens  (abbrev.  S'^ti^i,  not  to  be 
confounded  with  the  same  abbreviation  of  R.Solomon  b.Adorotli) 
who  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the  18th  century,  and  prin- 
cipally of  "Tosaphoth  Tuch"  or  Touques  by  R.  Eliezer  of  Tuch, 
(Touques),  second  part  of  that  century. 

A  collection  of  "former  Tosaphoth"  DTw'TnSDinon  Yoma 
is,  in  some  editions,  appended  to  that  Masechta.  R.  Moses  ol 
Coucy,  the  author  of  S'mag,  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  origin- 
ator of  that  collection. 


'     A  full  list  of  the  Tosaphists  is  given  by  Zunz,   Zur  Geschichte 
und  Literatur,  pp.  29-60. 


68  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

An  anonymous  author  of  the  14th  century,  excerj)ted  from 
all  Tosaphoth  the  practical  results  of  their  remarks  and  discuss- 
ions. These  paragraphed  excerpts  called  ri12Diri  "'pCS  (Decisions 
of  the  Tosaphoth)  are  in  our  Talmud  editions  appended  to  each 
Masechta. 

Remark  1.  References  to  certain  passages  in  Raslii  as  well  as 
Tosaphoth  are  usually  made  by  citing  the  beginning  words,  or  the  catch 
Avords  ([^TirDOn  "l3T  abbrev.  n"T)  of  that  passage. 

Remark  2.  Of  the  great  number  of  later  commentaries  and  super- 
commentaries,  generally  published  in  separate  volumes,  the  following 
are  appended  to  some  Talmud  editions: 

a.  nni^EJ'  nn^n  or  b"cnno  't^'n^n  by  Solomon  Luria  6"K>-tnO),  in 
the  XVI  century.  This  shorter  commentary  is  valuable  especially  on 
account  of  its  numerous  critical  emendations  in  the  reading  of  the  Tal. 
mud  text  as  well  as  of  Rashi  and  Tosaphoth. 

b.  ^''ti'ino  ^ti^HTI,  Novellae,  i.  e.  new  comments  by  R.  Sarnue^ 
Edels  (of  Posen,  died  in  the  year  1631).  In  these  explanatory  and 
dialectical  comments  on  Talmudical  passages,  and  on  Rashi  and 
Tosaphoth,  the  author  often  disjjlays  a  high  degree  of  sagacity  and 
penetration. 

c.  JD"inC  'K'n'n,  Novellae,  i.  e.  new  comments  by  R.  Meir  Lublin 
(Rabbi  in  Cracow  and  Lemberg,  died  in  the  year  1616).  These  likewise 
very  sagacious  comments  refer  mostly  to  the  Tosaphoth. 

B.    COMMENTARIES    EXCLUSIVET>Y    ON    THE    MISIINA. 
§33. 

1.  The  first  to  write  a  commentary  on  the  whole  Mishna 
was  Moses  Maimonides  [XII  century].  He  commenced  it  in 
the  23rd  year  of  his  age,  in  Spain,  and  finished  it  in  his  30th 
year,  in  Egypt.  This  commentary  was  written  in  Arabic, 
manuscrii)ts  of  wiiich  are  to  be  found  in  the  Bodleian  Library 
at  Oxford,  and  in  some  other  libraries.  From  the  Arabic  it 
was  translat(;d  into  Hebrew  by  several  scholars,  fiourishing  in 
the  XI 11  century,  namely  Seder  Zeraim,  by  Jehuda  Clumzi; 
Seder    Mi  ted,   oy  Joseph  Ibn  Alfual;   Seder  Nashim,  by  Jacob 


Comment  A  lUES  on  the  Talmud.  69 

Aclirsfii  (or  Abbasi').  Seder  Nezikin,  by  Solomon  b.  Joseph, 
with  the  exception  of  Perck  Chelek  in  Sanhedrin  and  Masecheth 
Aboth,  including  the  ethical  treatise  Sh'mone  Perakim,  in- 
troducing); the  latter,  which  were  translated  by  Samuel  Ibn 
Tibbon;  Seder  Kodashim,  by  Nathanel  Ibn  Almnli;  the  trans- 
lator of  Seder  Teharoth  is  not  known.  These  translations  arc 
appended  to  all  Talmud  editions,  behind  each  Masechta  under 
the  heading   of  D"2Din'?  nT'itrtrn  tTin^S. 

The  characteristic  feature  of  this  commentary  of  Maimonides 
consists  in  this,  that  it  follows  the  analytical  method,  laying 
down  at  the  beginning  of  each  section  the  principles  and  general 
views  of  the  subject,  and  thereby  throwing  light  upon  the  par- 
ticulars to  be  explained,  while  Rashi  in  his  Talmud  commentary 
adopted  the  synthetical  method,  commencing  with  the  explan- 
ation of  the  particulars,  and  thereby  leading  to  a  clear  under- 
standing of  the  whole  of  the  subject  matter. 

2.  Several  distinguished  Rabbis  wrote  commentaries  on 
single  sections  of  the  Mishna,  especially  on  those  Masechtoth  to 
which  no  iJabylonian  Gemara  (and  hence  no  Rashi)  exists.  Of 
these  commentaries  the  following  are  found  in  our  Talmud 
editions: 

a.  ti'"in  tl'TT'S  on  all  Masechtoth  of  Seder  Zeraim,  except 
Berachoth,  and  all  Masechtoth  of  Seder  Teharoth,  except  Nidda, 
by  J^.  Siviso/i  of  Sens  (XII  century),  the  celebrated  Tosaphist. 

b.  ^"i^".ri  tl'ITS,  on  the  same  Masechtoth,  by  R.  Asherb. 
YecJiiel  (XIII  cemtury)  the  author  of  the  epitome  of  the  Talmud 
which  is  appended  to  all  Masechtoth. 

c.  C'l  ki'll'^S  on  Masecheth  Middoth,  by  R.  Shemaya  who 
is  supposed  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  Rashi. 

d.  "T'3Sin  w1"l''B  on  Masecheth  Eduyoth,  by  R.  Abraham 
b.  Davidi^W  cent.),  the  celebrated  author  of  critical  annotations 
on  Maimonides'  Talmudical  code. 

e.  Commentary  on  the  Masechtoth  Kinnim  and  Tamid 
by  an  anonymous  author, 

3.  R.  Obadya  of  Berti/iorom\i^\y^  and  Rabbi  in  Jerusalem 
(d.  in  the  year  1510),  wrote  a  very  lucid  commentary  on  the 
whole  Mishna  which  accompanies  the  text  in  most  of  our  separate 

*     See  Graetz,  Geschichte  d.  J,  vol.  VJI,  p.  302. 


70  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

* 
Mishna  editions.     He  follows  the  analytic  method  of  Rashi,  and 
adds  to  each  paragraph  ot  the  Mishna  the  result  of  the  discussion 
of  the  Gemara. 

4.  13"T'  niSDiri  Additional  Comments  by  Yo?n  Tob  Lipman 
Heller,  Rabbi  of  Prague  and  Cracow  (XVII  century).  These 
comments  likewise  extending  to  all  parts  of  the  Mishna,  and 
accompanying  its  text  on  the  opi)osite  side  of  Bartinoro's  com- 
mentary in  most  of  our  Mishna  editions,  contain  very  valuable 
explanations  and  critical  remarks. 

5.  Of  shorter  commentaries  to  be  found  only  is  some  special 
editions  of  the  Mishna  text  the  following  may  be  mentioned: 

a.  D'^TI  ]*>',  by  Jacob  Chagiz^  Rabbi  in  Jerusalem  (XVII 
century),  the  author  of  a  Talmudical  terminology  Techilath 
Chock  ma. 

6.  nn:  rp  s'?^,  by  Senior  Phoebus  (XVIII  cent.).  This 
commentary  is  an  abstract  of  Bertinoros  and  Yom  Tob  Lipman 
Heller's  commentaries. 

b.  nnjri^,  hy  Isaac  Ibn  6^^7/Vw/ in  Leghorn  (XVII  century),  is 
generally  leased  on  the  commentaries  of  Rashi  and  Maimonides. 

C.  Commf:ntai?ies  on  the  Palestinian  Talmud. 
§  34. 

The  Palestinian  'rulniiid  was  not  as  Ibrtunate  as  the  Babyl- 
oninn  in  rcgni'd  to  complete  and  lucid  commentaries.  Most  of 
the  commentaries  on  the  former  extend  only  to  some  sections 
or  pa.rts  thereof,  and  none  of  them  dates  further  back  than  to 
the  sixteenth  century. 

The  first  commentary  on  the  whole  Palestinian  Talmud  by 
an  anonymous  author,  appeared  in  the  Cracow  edition  Af  the 
year  1601),  and  isr(;printed  in  the  latest  Krotoschin  edition.  It 
is  a  brief  an<l  iiisiillicient  commentary. 

2.  yCiri''  mtt',  a  conmKintary  (tii  is  MMsechtotii  by  R. 
Joshua   Bcnvcnistc  (XVII  century). 

;{.  my  p'^p  !""^  additions,  calitMl  j^np  '•"I'^li'  on  Seder 
Moe<l,  Nasliini  and  pai't  ofNe/ikin  by  K.  David  Fracnkcl^  Rnbbi 
in  Dessau  itiid  latci-  in  Ucrliii,  (tenclier  of  Moses  Mendelssohn, 
XN'Iil  <<iitiirv). 


COMMENTAUIKS  ON  TlIK  TAr.MUD.  71 

4.  n^aun  ^JI3  and  d'^JSm  nSID,  a  double  commentary  on  the 
whole  Jcrushahni  (^_y  Ji.  Moses  Margolioth  (XVIII  century).  This 
doul)lo  commentary  and  the  preceding  of  David  Fracnkel  are 
embodied  in  the  Shitomir  edition  (IseO-GT). 

5.  |T'^  n^nS  onBerachoth,  Peahand  Demai  hy  Z.Fmnkel 
(Vienna  1874  and  Breslau  1875). 

6.  Commentary  on  Seder  Zeraim  and  Mosedlieth  Shekalim 
by  Solomon  Syrileio  (or  Serillo)^  an  exile  from  Spain,  Of  this 
commentary  only  Berachoth  was  published  from  a  MS.  with 
annotations  by  M.  Lehmann  (Frank,  on  the  Main  1875). 

Regarding  some  other  commentaries  on  single  parts  of  the 
Palestinian  Talmud  see  Z.  Frankel,  Mebo  Ha-Jerushalmi 
1 3-1  a- 1?.  6  a. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

EPITOMES  AND  CODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  TALMUD. 

IXTKODUCTOilY. 

§   35. 

Since  the  Babylonian  Talmnd  was  considered  by  most  of 
the  Jewish  comnumities  in  all  countries  as  the  source  of  the  rab- 
binical law  by  which  to  regnlate  the  religious  life,  it  is  but 
natural  that  already  at  a  comparatively  early  period  attempts 
were  made  to  fnrnish  abstracts  of  the  same  for  practical  purposes. 
This  was  done  partly  by  ci)itonies  or  compendiiinis  wliich,  retain- 
ing the  general  arrangement  and  divisions  of  the  Talmud,  bring 
its  matter  into  a  narrower  compass  by  omitting  its  Agadic  and 
\innecessary  passages,  and  abridging  the  legal  discussions;  and 
partly  by  codes  in  Avhich  tlic  results  of  the  discussed  legal  mat- 
ter is  presented  in  a  more  systematic  order.  The  first  attempts 
in  this  directi(m  were  made  by  R.  Jchndai  (xiion  of  Sura  (VIII 
century)  in  his  book  Halachoth  Kctiioth  (abridged  Ilalaciioth), 
and  by  II.  Simon  Knhiro  (Cairo, — IX  century)  in  his  Halachoth 
Gcdoloth.  JJolh  of  these  two  works  which  afterwards  coalesced 
into  one  work  still  extant  under  the  latter  title,  W(,'re  however 
e(,'lii)S('(i  j)y  Inter  master  works  of  other  celebrated  R!il)bini('al 
authorities. 

A.       ElMTOMES. 

§  36. 

'I'lic  pi-int'ii)id  oi)itomes  or  comix'ndiums  ol'tlie  Talmud  are 
by  tlic  Ibllowiiii;-  iiutiiors: 

1.  R.  /suae  Alfasi  (after  the  initials  called  "Rif,  born  in 
1(H:;  near  the  city  of  Fe/,  in  Africa,  died  in  1103  as  Ilabbi  at 
Lucena  in  Spain)  wrote  an  excellent  compendium  which  he  called 
'* Halachoth"  but  whicli  is  usually  called  by  the  name  of  its 
author  '«Z2^S  or  C]"^'\.  In  thi!s  compendium  he  retains  the 
general  arrangement,  the  language  and  style  of  the  Talmud, 
but   omits,   besides  the  Agada,    all  parts  and  passages  which 


Epitomks  and  Codifications.  73 

concern  laws  that  had  l)cconic  obsolete  since  the  destruction  of 
the  temple.  Besides,  he  condensed  the  lengthy  discussions,  and 
added  his  own  decision  in  cases  not  clearly  decided  in  the  Talmud. 

Remark.  Alfasi's  compendium  comprises  in  print  three  large  folio 
volumes  in  which  the  text  is  accompanied  by  Rashi's  Talmud  com- 
mentary and,  besides,  by  numerous  commentaries,  annotations  and 
glosses,  especially  those  by  R.  Nissim  b.  Reuben  (}"n);  by  R.  Zerachia 
Halevi  (Maor);  by  R.  Mordecai  b.  Hillel;  by  R.  Joseph  Chabiba  (Nimuke 
Joseph),  and  by  some  other  distinguished  Rabbis. 

2,  R.  Asher  b.  Jcchiel  (ty"S"iri),  a  German  Rabbi,  later  in 
Toledo,  Spain,  where  he  died  in  1327,  wrote  a  comi)cndium  alter 
the  pattern  of  that  of  Alfasi  and  embodied  in  the  same  also  the 
opinions  of  later  authorities.  This  compendium  is  appended  in 
our  Talmud  editions  to  each  Masechta,  under  the  title  of  the 
author  nt2;S  T:"'3"I. 

R.  Jacob,  the  celelirated  son  of  this  author,  added  to  that 
compendium  an  abstract  of  the  decisions  contained  in  the  same, 

the  ty"Knn  ^pD^s  '\n'^:^- 

B.       C  0  D  E  s. 
§  37. 

1.  Mishnc  Thora  niin  n^w'D  ''Repetition  of  the  Law",  by 
11.  Moses  Maimonides  (D"2D"l)  flourishing  in  the  XII  century. 
This  is  the  most  comprehensive  and  systematically  arranged  Code 
of  all  the  Laws  scattered  through  the  two  Talmuds,  or  resulting 
from  the  discussions  in  the  same.  Occasionally  also  the  opinions 
of  the  post  Talmudic  authorities,  the  Gaonim,  are  added. 

This  gigantic  work,  written  throughout  in  Mishnic  Hebrew 
in  a  very  lucid  and  attractive  style,  is  divided  into  fourteen 
books,  hence  its  additional  name  Sepher  Ha-yad  (T'  having  the 
numerical  value  of  14),  and  by  way  of  distinction,  it  was  later 
called  ''Yad  Hachazaka",  the  strong  hand.  Every  book  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  various  subjects  treated  therein,  divided  into 
Halachoth,  the  special  names  of  which  are  given  at  the  head  of 
each  of  those  fourteen  books.  The  Halachoth  are  again  subdi- 
vided into  chapters  (Perakim),  and  these  into  paragraphs. 


74  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Remark.  This  Code  is  usualy  published  in  four  large  folio  volumes, 
and  provided  with  the  following  annotations  and  commentaries: 

a.  Hasagoth  Robed  *l"3Xnn  niJKTI  Critical  Remarks,  by  R. 
Abraham  b.  David,  of  Posquieres,  a  contemporary  and  antagonist  of 
Maimonides. 

b.  Migdal  Oz  tiy  ^^J0,  the  Toiver  of  Strength,  defending  Maimonid- 
es' Code  against  the  censures  of  the  critic  named  above,  by  Shem  Tob 
Ibn  Gaon,  of  Spain  (beginning  of  XIV  century). 

c.  Ilagahoth  Maimuniyoth  nV'JIO'O  mnjn,  Annotations,  by  R. 
Meir  Ha-Cohen,  of  Narbonne  (XIV  century). 

d.  Maggid  Mishne.  a  commentary,  generally  referring  to  the 
Talmudical  sources  of  the  decisions  in  Maimonides'  Code,  by  Don 
Vidal  di  Tolosa  (XIV  century). 

e.  Khesef  Mishne,  rUB'tt  ^02,  a  commentary  like  the  preceding, 
by  R.  Joseph  Karo,  the  author  of  the  Shulchan  Aruch   (XVI  century). 

In  some  editions  the  following  two  commentaries  are  also  ap- 
pended. 

Leehem  Mishne  nSt^D  Dnb>  by  R.  Abraham  de  Baton,  of  Szafed, 
XVI  century. 

Mishne  Vmelech  ~p)y?  nri^D.  ''y  Jehmla  Rosancs,  Rabbi  in  Con- 
stantinople, d.  1727. 

2.  ^113  mi'D'D  (al)brev.  3"DD),  the  «!:rcat  Law  book,  V)y  the 
Tosapliist  7?.  Moses  of  Coiicy^  in  Prance  (XllI  century).  This 
work  arranges  the  Talmudical  law  according  to  the  613  precepts 
which  the  Rabbis  found  to  be  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is 
divided  into  j'^tl^j;  commendatory,  and  Jills'?  prohibitory  laws. 

Remark.  A  similar  work,  but  on  a  smaller  scale,  is  pp  niVO  'D 
(p"OD),  also  called  Aniiide  Golali,  by  R.  Isaac  b.  Joseph,  of  Corbeil. 
(d.  1280). 

3.  Tu/im  □''"iHD  (the  Rows  of  Laws),  by  R.  Jacob,  son  of 
tli;d ccilebrated  R.  Asher  b.  Jcchicl  who  was  mentioned  above, 
'riie  work  is  divided  into  four  parts,  called:  Tur  Orach  C/iayim, 
treating  of  Liturgical  Laws  ;  7//;-  Yore  Dea,  tieating  of 
the  Ritual  Laws  ;  Tur  Eben  Ha-ezcr  on  tlie  Marriage 
Laws,  and  7'///-  Choshcn  Mishpat  on  the  Civil  Laws.  Eacli  of 
these  four  books  is  subdivided  according  to  subjects  under  ap- 
propriate headings,  and  into  chapters,   called  Simanim.     Tliis 


Epitomes  and  Codifications.  75 

code  (litfers  from  that  of  Maimonides  in  so  far  as  it  is  restricted  to 
such  laws  only  which  were  still  in  use  outside  of  Palestine,  and 
as  it  embodies  also  rules  and  customs  which  were  established 
after  the  close  of  the  Talmud.  Besides,  it  is  not  written  in  that 
uniform  and  pure  language  and  in  that  lucid  style  by  which  the 
work  of  Maimonides  is  characterized. 

Remark.  The  text  of  the  Tiirim  is  generally  provided  with  the 
commentaries  Beth  Joseph,  by  R.  Joseph  Karo,  and  Darke  Moshe,  by 
R.  Moses  Isserles. 

4.  Shukhan  Aruch^  ^ny  ^rh"^  (the  prepared  table),  by  R. 
Joseph  Karo  (XVI  century),  the  same  author  who  wrote  the  com- 
mentaries on  the  codes  of  Maimonides  and  of  R.  Jacob  b.  Asher. 
Taking  the  last  mentioned  code  (Turim)  and  his  own  commentary 
on  the  same  as  basis,  and  retaining  its  division  into  four  parts  as 
well  as  that  into  subjects  and  chapters,  he  subdivided  each 
chapter  (Siman)  into  paragraphs  (□''3"»j;d)  and  so  remodeled  its 
contents  as  to  give  it  the  proper  shape  and  style  of  a  law  book. 
This  Shulchan  Aruch  together  with  the  numerous  annotations 
(mn^n)  added  to  it  by  the  contemporary  R.  Moses  Isserles  (t<"D"l) 
was  up  to  our  time  regarded  by  all  rabbinical  Jews  as  the  autho- 
ritative code  by  which  all  questions  of  the  religious  life  were 
decided. 

Remark.  The  glosses  and  comraentaries  on  the  Shulchan  Arucli 
are  very  numerous.  Those  usually  printed  with  the  text  in  the  folio 
editions  are  the  following,  all  belonging  to  the  seventeenth  century: 

a.  Beer  ha-Gola,  giving  the  sources  of  that  code,  by  Moses  Ribkes 
in  Amsterdam. 

b.  jTwj'c  Zahab  (T"t2)  commentary  on  all  parts  of  the  code,  by  R. 
David  b.  Samuel  Halevi. 

c.  Sifthe  Cohen  {-\"'C')  on  Jore  Dea  and  Choshen  Mishpat,  by  R. 
Sabbathai  Cohen. 

d.  Magen  Abraham  (n"0)  on  Orach  Chayim,  by  R.  Abrain 
Gumbinner. 

e.  Beth   Samuel  on  Eben  Ha-ezer  by  R.  Samuel  b.  Uri,  of  Furth. 

f.  Chelkath  Mechokek  on  Eben  Ha-ezer,  by  R.  Moses  of  Brisk. 


T6  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Constant  references  to  the  four  Codes  mentioned  ahove  are 
made  in  the  marginal  glosses  which  are  found  on  every  page  of 
the  Talmud,  under  the  heading  of  '■'■En  Mishpat,  Ner  Mitzwah''\ 
It  is  the  object  of  tliesc  glosses  to  show,  at  every  instance  when 
a  law  is  quoted  or  discussed  in  the  Talmud,  where  the  final  decision 
of  that  law  is  to  be  found  in  the  various  codes.  The  authorship 
of  these  marginal  glosses  is  ascribed  to  R.  Joshua  Boas  Baruch 
(XYI  century).  The  same  scholar  wrote  also  the  glosses 
headed  Thora  Or  which  arc  found  in  the  space  between  the 
Talmud  text  and  Bashi's  commentary,  and  which  indicate  the 
books  and  chapters  of  the  biblical  passages  quoted  in  the  Talmud, 
besides,  the  very  important  glosses  on  the  inner  margins  of  the 
pages,  headed  Massoreth  Ha-shas  (D'XTi  n"nDD)  which  give 
references  to  parallel  passages  in  the  Talmud.  The  last  ment- 
ioned glosses  were  later  increased  with  critical  notes  by  Isaiah 
Berlin  (Pik),  Babbi  in  Breslau  (d.  1(99). 

C.     Collections  of  the  Agadic  Portions  of  the  Talmud. 

§  38. 

While  the  above  mentioned  Compendiums  and  Codes  are 
restricted  to  abstracting  only  the  legal  matter  (Halacha)  of  the 
Talmud,  R.  yarf<^ /(^/;  C7/<7 /'//',  flourishing  at  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  collected  all  the  Agadic  passages  especially  of 
the  Babylonian  Talmud.  This  very  popular  collection  which  is 
usually  ju'inted  Avith  various  commentaries  has  tlie  title  of /s« 
Jacob  (3py^  j''y;  in  some  editions  it  is  also  called  ^Slti'''  |''j;). 

R.  Samuel  /"«/?,  flourishing  in  the  latter  part  of  that  century, 
ni;ulc  a  similai"  Collection  off  he  Agadic  passagesoff  he  Palestinian 
'J'almud  with  an  extensive  connnentary  under  tlic  title  of 
nxnD  nS""  (^^if'""^,  I590  and  Berlin  1725-26).  An  abridged 
edition  wifh  a  short commeiilary  was  published  under  f  he  title  of 
C^'?t:*"n"'  pii'D  (licmberg,   1860). 


CHAPTER  IX. 

MANUSCRIPTS    AND      PRINTED    EDITIONS    OF   THE 

TALMUD. 

A.     Manuscripts. 

§  39. 

In  consequence  of  the  terrible  persecutions  of  the  Jews 
(luring  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  destruction  of  their  libraries, 
so  often  connected  therewith,  and  especially  in  consequence  of 
the  vandalism  repeatedly  perpetrated  by  the  Church  against 
the  Talmud,'  only  a  very  limited  number  of  nmnuscrii)ts  of  the 
same  have  come  down  to  our  time.  Codices  of  single  Sedarim 
(sections)  and  Masechtoth  (tracts  or  treatises)  are  to  be  found  in 
various  libraries  of  Europe,  especially  in  the  Vatican  Library  of 
Rome,  and  in  the  libraries  of  Parma,  Leyden,  Paris,  Oxlbrd, 
Cambridge,  Munich,  Berlin  and  Hamburg.  The  only  known 
complete  manuscript  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud,  written 
in  the  year  1369,  is  in  possession  of  the  Royal  Library  of 
Munich,  A  fragment  of  Talmud  Pesachim,  of  the  ninth  or  tenth 
century,  is  preserved  in  the  University  Library  of  Cambridge, 
and  was  edited  with  an  autotype  fascimile,  by  W.  H.  Lowe, 
Cambridge  18  79. 

The  Columbia  College  in  the  city  of  New  York,  lately 
acquired  a  collection  of  manuscripts  containing  the  treatises 
Pesachim^  Moed  Katon^  Megilla  and  Zebaehim  of  the  Babylonian 
Talmud.  These  manuscripts  came  from  Southern  Arabia,  and 
date  from  the  year  1548. ' 

'  It  is  stated  that  at  the  notorious  auto-da-fe  of  the  Talmud,  held 
in  the  year  1249,  at  Paris,  twenty  four  cart-loads  of  Talmud  tomes  were 
consigned  to  the  flames.  Similar  destructions  of  the  Talmud  were 
executed  by  the  order  of  Pope  Julius  III,  in  the  year  1553,  first  at  Rome, 
then  at  Bologne  and  Venii^e,  and  in  the  following  year  in  Ancona  and 
other  cities.  Among  the  12,000  tomes  of  the  Talmud  that  were  burned 
at  Cremona,  in  the  year  1559  (see  Graetz  Geschichte  d.  Juden  X.  p.  382), 
were  undoubtedly  also  numerous  Manuscripts,  though  most  of  them 
may  have  been  printed  copies. 

^  See  Max  f^.  MargoUs,  "The  Columbia  College  MS.  of 
Meghilla  examined,"  New  York  1893. 


78  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Manuscripts  of  the  Mishna  or  of  single  Sedarini  thereof, 
some  ofwhicli  dating  from  the  thirteenth  century,  are  preserved 
in  the  libraries  of  Parma,  of  Berlin,  of  Hamburg,  of  Oxford  and 
of  Cambridge.  That  of  the  last  mentioned  library  ^vas  edited 
by  S.  M.  Schiller-Szinessy:  "The  Mishna  on  which  the  Palestin- 
ian Talmud  rests,"  etc.,  Cambridge  1883. 

Of  the  Palestinian  Talmud  the  only  manuscript,  of  consid- 
erable extent,  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of  Leyden.  See  S. 
M.  Schiller-Szinessy,  "Description  of  the  Leyden  MS.  of  the 
Palestinian  Talmud."  Cambridge  1878.  Fragments  of  the 
Palestinian  Talmud  are  also  found  in  some  other  libraries, 
especially   in  those  of  Oxford  and  Parma. 

Fuller  information  concerning  MSS.  of  the  Talmud  is  given 
in  F.  Lebrecht's   "Handschriften  und  erste  Ausgaben  des  Babyl. 
Talmud,"  Berlin  1862.  See  also  M.  Steinschiieider's  "Hebi'iiische     . 
Bibliographic,"  Berlin,  1862  and  1863. 

B.     Thk  Talmud  in  Print. 

a.     The  Misliua  editions.  \ 

§  40.  '  -^ 

Already  as  early  as  the  year  1492,  the  first  edition  of  th^ 
Mishna  together  with  the  commentary  of  Maimonides  appeared 
in  Naples.  It  was  folio  \vcd  by  several  editions  of  Venice  (l.')46-50, 
iiiid  1606),  of  Riva  di  Trento  (1559)  and  of  Mantua  (1559-63). 
Ill  the  last  mentioned  editions  the  commentary  of  Obadia  di 
l>erti'inoro  is  added.  Tlie  editions  whicli  have  sinc^e  appeared 
are  very  numerous.  Those  wliich  appeared  since  the  seven- 
teenth century  are  generally  accompanied,  besides  Bertinoro's 
commentary,  by  tD'"*  mSDin  by  Lipman  Holler  or  some  other 
shorter  comiiientai'les. 

b.     The  l}ubyloiii;in  Talmud. 

§  41. 

The  first  comi)1ete  edition  of  tin'  Uabylonian  'IVdiiiud  was 
published    by    Daniel    LJombeig   in   12    folio     volumes,     Venice 


Manuscripts  and  printed  Editions.  ^9 

1520-23.  J  Besides  the  text,  it  contains  the  commentary  of  Rashi, 
the  Tosaphoth,  the  Piske-Tosaphoth,  the  compendium  of  Asheri, 
and  the  Mishna  commentary  of  Maimonides.  This  original 
edition  served  as  model  for  all  editions  which  subsequently  ap- 
peared at  Venice,  Basel,  Cracow,  Lublin,  Amsterdam,  Frank- 
fort on-the-Oder,  Berlin,  Frankfort  on-the-Main,  Sulzbach,  Dy- 
hernfurt,  Prague,  Warsaw,  and  recently  at  Vienna  and  Wilna.  The 
later  editions  were  greatly  improved  by  the  addition  of  valuable 
literary  and  critical  marginal  notes  and  appendices  by  learned 
rabbis.  But  the  Basel  and  most  of  the  subsequent  editions  down 
almost  to  the  present  time,  have  been  much  mutilated  by  the 
official  censors  of  the  press,  who  expunged  from  the  Talmud  all 
those  passages  which,  in  their  opinion,  seemed  to  reflect  upon 
Christianity,  and, besides,  changed  expressions,  especially  names 
of  nations  and  of  sects,  which  they  suspected  as  having  reference 
to  Christians.  ^ 

The  Amsterdam  editions,  especially  the  first  (1644-48),  es- 
caped those  mutilations  at  the  hand  of  the  censors,  and  are  on 
this  account  considered  very  valuable.  Most  of  the  passages  which 
have  elsewhere  been  eliminated  or  altered  by  the  censors,  have 
been  extracted  from  the  Amsterdam  edition,  and  published  in 
separate  small  books.  Of  these  the  following  two  may  be  menti- 
oned: m:Da*y:'nnriV.fl2p  (s.l.)andD"tyn  m:TlDn,Koenigsberg,  1860. 

A  critical  review  of  the  complete  editions  of  the  Babylonian 
Talmud  and  of  the  very  numerous  editions  of  single  Masechtoth 


*  Prior  to  this  first  complete  edition,  a  number  of  single  Masechtoth 
of  the  Babyl.  Talmud  had  already  been  published  by  Gershom  of 
Soncino,  between  the  years  1484  and  1519,  at  Soncino  and  at  Pesaro. 

*  Words  mostly  changed  are:  instead  of  i)i  (gentile)  'ri13 
(a  Samaritan)  or  ^k>id  (an  Aethiopian);  instead  of  po  (a  heretic)  ^pnv 
(a  Sadducee)  or  Dlllp'ESX  (an  Epicurean);  instead  of  >-|2J  (an  alien,  a  Non 
Israelite)  n"l3y  (an  idolater);  instead  of  n"1N  (the  nations  of  the  world)— 
D"'''^33(Babylonians)  or  D''jy:3(Canaanites) ;  instead  of '»x»'n(the  Roman?) 
■•XOnN  (Syrians)  or  >KDnD  (Persians);  instead  of  "'0"n(Rome)  T»yn  (the  city) 
etc. 

In  the  more  recent  editions,  however,  except  those  appearing 
under  Russian  censorship,  the  original  readings  liave  mostly  been 
restored. 


80  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

since  the  year  1484,  Avas  published  by  Raphael  Rabbinovicz,   in 
his  Hebrew  pamphlet,  ni^Sln  nD£in  b"^  "IDKD  Munich  1877. » 

The  same  author  also  collected  and  published  very  rich  and 
important  material  for  a  critical  edition  of  the  BaV)ylonian 
Talmud  from  the  above  mentioned  manuscript  in  the  Royal 
Library  of  Munich  and  other  manuscripts,  as  well  as  from  early 
prints  of  single  Masechtoth  in  various  libraries.  The  title  of 
this  very  extensive  work,  written  in  Hebrew,  is  Dikduke  Sopherim, 
^"£10  ''p'npTD  with  the  Latin  title:  Variaelectiones  in  Mislmam 
ct  in  Talmud  Babylonicum,  etc.,  Munich  1868-86.  The  fifteen 
volumes  in  octavo  which  have  appeared  of  this  valuable  work 
comprise  only  three  and  a  half  Sedarim  of  the  six  Setlarim  of  the 
Talmud.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  in  consequence  of  the  death 
of  the  learned  author  the  completion  of  this  important  work  has 
been  suspended. 

'c.     The  Palestinian  Talmud. 
§  42. 

Of  the  Palestinian  Talmud  (Jerushalmi)  only  four  complete 
editJDHs  api)eared: 

1.  The  first  edition,  published  by  Daniel  Bomberg,  Venice 
1.^2.-}-24,  in  one  folio  volume,  without  any  commentary. 

2.  The  Craco7v  edition,  1609,  with  a  short  commentary 
on  tli(!  margin. 

3.  The  Krotoshin  edition,  1806,  with  a  commentary  like 
that  in  the  Cracow  edition,  but  added  to  it  are  marginal  notes, 
containing  references  to  parallel  passages  in  tiie  Babylonian 
Talmud,  and  corrections  ot  text  readings. 

4.  The  Shitomir  edition,  1860-67,  in  several  folio  volumes, 
with  various  commentaries. 

Besides  these  four  complete  editions,  several  parts  have 
b(;(!H  published  with  commeiitiii'i(\s. 


'     Tiiis    instnurtive   piiiiiplilct  is  iilso  reprinted   us  jui  apix'ndix  to 
vol.   VllI  of  hikiluk<;    So])ln'riiii, 


CHAPTER  X. 

AUXILTAllIES  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  TALMUD. 
A.     Lexicons. 

§  43. 

1.  The  Ariich  ("^Tljjn)  'jy  R-  N'athan  b.  Jcchiel,  of  Rome, 
tlourisliing  in  the  eleventh  century.  This  oldest  Lexicon  for 
I)oth  Talmnds  and  the  Midrashim,  on  wliich  all  later  dictionaries 
are  based,  still  retains  its  high  value,  especially  on  account  of 
its  copious  quotations  from  the  Talmudical  literature  by  which 
many  corrupted  readings  are  corrected.  It  received  many  va- 
luable additions  (■[l"lj;n  fiDID)  at  the  hand  of  Benjamin  Mussaphia 
(XVII  century).  Tliese  additions,  generally  headed  by  the 
initials  3"K  =  pD"'J2  "iDX,  mostly  explain  the  Greek  and  Latin 
words  accuring  in  the  Talmud  and  Midrash.  The  edition  by 
M.  Landau  (Prague  1819-24,  in  five  8vo  volumes)  is  increased  by 
numerous  annotations  and  supplied  with  definitions  in  German. 
The  latest  and  best  edition  of  that  important  work  is: 

2.  Aruch  Completmn  (D^ttTI  TllJ?)  by  Alexander  Kohitt^  vol. 
1-VIIL  Vienna  and  New  York,  1878-1892.  In  this  edition  the 
original  lexicon  of  Nathan  b.  Jechiel  is  corrected  by  collating 
several  ancient  Mss.  of  the  work,  and,  besides,  considerably 
enlarged  by  very  valuable  philological  and  critical  researches 
and  annotations. 

3.  Lexicon  Tahnudicum  by  Joh.  Bustorf^  Basel,  1640.  Of 
this  work  written  in  Latin,  a  new  corrected  and  enlarged  edition 
was  published  by  B.  Fischer^  Leipsic,  1869-75. 

4.  Neuhebraisches  und  chald.  Wortcrbitch  iiber  die  Tal- 
mudim  und  Midrashim,  by  J.  Levy  in  four  volumes.  Leipsic 
1876-89. 

5.  A  Dictionary  of  the  Talmud  Babli  and  Yerushalmi  and 
the  Midrashic  Literature,  by  M.  Jastrow.  London  and  New 
York,  1886-92.  The  five  parts,  thus  far  published  of  this 
Dictionary,  the  only  oue  in  English,  reach  to  the  letter  O- 


82  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Remark.  There  are,  besides,  several  small  dictionaries,  mostly 
abstracts  of  the  Aruch,  and  useful  for  beginners.  Special  mention 
deserves  M.  Schulbaum,  Neuhebraisch-deutsches  Worterbuch,  Lem- 
berg,  1880. 

B.     Grammars. 
§  44. 

The  modern  works  on  the  Grammar  of  the  MisJma  have 
already  been  mentioned  above  p.  15  in  the  Note  to  t lie  paragraph 
speaking  of  the  Language  of  the  Mishna.  The  first  attempt  at 
compiling  a  Grammar  of  tlie  peculiar  dialect  of  the  Babylonian 
Gemara  was  made  by: 

S.  D.  Luzzatto  'vi\.\yi's>  "Elementi  grammaticali  del  Caldeo 
Biblico  edel  dialetto  Talmudico  Babilonese".     Padua,  1865. 

Two  translations  of  this  work  appeared,  namely: 

1.  Grammatik  der  bibl.  chaldaeischen  Sprache  und  des 
Idioms  des  Talmud  Babli.  Ein  Grundriss  von  S.  I).  Luzzatto, 
mit  Anmerkungen  herausgegeben  von  M.  S.  Kriiger.  Breslau, 
ISTS. 

2.  Luzzatto's  Grammar  of  the  bibl.  Chaldaic  Language  and 
of  the  idiom  of  the  Talmud  Babli,  translated  by  /.  Gohiammcr^ 
New  York,  1876. 

Caspar  Levias.  Grammar  of  the  Aramaic  Idiom  contained 
in  the  Babylonian  Talmud,     In  preparation. 

/.  Rosenberg.  Das  Aramiiisclie  Verbum  in  babyl.  Talmud. 
Marburg,  1888. 

C.      ClIRESTOMATHIES, 
§  45. 

A.  B.  Ehrlich.  Rashc  Fcrakim,  Selections  from  the  Talmud 
and  the  Midrashim.     New  York,  1884. 

B.  Fischer.  Talmudische  Chrestomathie  mit  Anmerkungen, 
Scholien  und  Glossar.     Leipsic,  1884. 

Ph.  Lederer.  Lehrbuch  zum  Selbstunterricht  im  babyl.  'J'al- 
mud,  3  parts,  Pressburg,  1881-88. 

A.  Singer.  '^'T\'nr\  Talmudische  Chrestomathie  fiir  don 
ersten  Unterrichtim  Tiilnnid,  2  parts.     Pressburg,  1882. 


Auxiliaries  to  the  study  of  the  Talmud,  8S 

D.     Introductory  Works  and  Treatises. 

a.    Older  Works. 

§  46. 

1.  Samuel  Hanagid^  of  Granada  (XI  century),  was  the  first 
to  wi-ite  an  introduction  to  the  Talmud.  Only  a  part  of  his 
work  has  come  down  to  our  time,  and  is  appended  to  the  first 
volume  of  our  Talmud  editions  under  the  heading  llD^Jin  SUC 

2.  Moses  Maimonides  opens  his  Mishna  commentary  on 
Seder  Zeraim  with  an  introduction  to  the  Talmud,  especially  to 
the  Mishna. 

This  introduction  of  Maimonides  as  well  as  that  of  Samuel 
Hanagid  have  been  translated  into  German  l)y  Pinner  in  his 
Translation  of  Talm.  Berachoth. 

3.  nWia  'D  (Methodology  of  the  Talmud),  by  Samson  of 
Chinon  (XlV  century).  Constantine  (1515),  Cremona,  (155H), 
Verona  (1657). 

4.  D^iy  mD''^n,  by  Jeshua  b.  Joseph  Halevi,  of  Toledo, 
(XV  century). 

This  work  was  translated  into  Latin  by  Constantin 
L'Empereur,  under  the  title  Clavis  Talmudica.  Leyden,  1634. 

In  the  editions  of  Venice  (1639),  and  of  Livorno  (1792)  the 
Halichoth  01am  is  accompanied  by  two  complementary  works: 
nn'pnn  "'^^S,  by  Joseph  Karo,  and  n yiDD'  j''3^  by  Solomon  Algazi. 

Abstracts  of  the  works  3  and  4  are  added  to  Samuel  Hanagid's 
Mebo  Hatalmud  in  the  appendix  to  our  Talmud  editions. 

5.  SIDj"  ''311  Methodology  of  the  Talmud  by  Isaac 
Campanton^  of  Castilia  (XV  century),  published  in  Venice  (1565) 
Mantua  (1593),  Amsterdam  (1754).  A  new  edition  was  pub- 
lished by  Isaac  Weiss,  Vienna,  1891. 

6.  nD2n  n^nn  (Methodology  of  the  Talmud),  by  Jacob 
Chagiz  (XVII  century).     Verona  1647.  Arast.  1709. 

b.    Modern  Works  in  Hebrew. 
§  47. 
/.  Abelsohn.     rniH''  ]"nDT,  Methodology  of  the  Mishna  and 
Rule.s  of  Halacha.     Wilna,  1859. 


84  HiSTOEICAL  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION, 

Jacob  Briill,  nJti'Dn  N13S,  Introduction  to  the  Mishua;  2 
volumes.  Frankf.  o.  M.  1876-85.  Vol.  I  treats  of  the  lives  and 
methods  of  the  teachers  trom  Ezra  to  the  close  of  the  Mishna, 
and  vol.  II  of  the  Plan  and  System  of  the  Mishna. 

Zebi  Hirsch  Chajes.  lID^rn  i<13D,  Introduction  to  the 
Talmud.     Lemberg,    1845. 

Z.  FrankeL  nJtt'ISn  ''^"n,  Hodegetica  in  Mishnam  etc., 
Leipsic,  1859.  A  litle  Supplement  to  this  important  work  was 
published  under  the  litle  of  ''Additameuta  et  Index  ad  librum 
Hodegetica  in  Mischnam".     Leipsic,   1867. 

Z.  FrankeL  •'D'7tS'l"l\"I  StZD,  Introductio  in  Talmud  Hiero- 
solymitanum.     Breslau,  1870. 

Joachim  Oppenhehner.  niyJ-'DH  mi^in,  the  genesis  of  the 
Mishna.     Pressburg,  1882. 

J.  H.  Weiss.  T>i2,-i*m  nn  nn  with  the  German  title:  Zur 
Geschichte  der  jiidischen  Tradition.  Vienna,  1871-83.  Vol  I 
and  II  treat  of  the  period  to  the  close  of  the  Mishna,  and  Vol. 
Ill  of  that  of  the  Amoraim. 

J.  Wiesner.  c^tS'll''  fip^i,  Investigations  concerning 
the  origin  and  the  contents  of  the  Palestinian  Talmud.  Vienna, 
1872. 

c.    Works  and   Articles  in  Modern  Languages. 
§48. 

S.  Adler.  The  article  Tabmid  in  Johnson's  Encyclopedia, 
New  York.  Reprinted  in  the  author's  collective  work  '  'Kobetz 
al  Yad".  New  York,  1886:  pp.  46-80. 

J.  S.  Block.  Einblickc  in  die  Geschichte  der  Entstehung 
dor  Talmudischen  Literatur.     Vienna,  1884. 

N.  Briill.  Die  Entstchungsgeschichte  des  babyl.  Talmuds 
als  Scliriftwerkes  (in  Jahrbucher  fiirJiid.  Geschichte u.  Literatur 
II  pp.  1-123). 

Sam.  Davidson.  The  Article  Talmud  in  John  Kitto's 
Cyclopaedia. 

J.  Derenbourg,  Article  Talmud  in  Lichtenberg's  Ency' 
eloped ie  des  sciences  religieuses.  Paris,  1882.  XII  pp.  1007" 
10:i6. 


Auxiliaries  to  the  study  of  the  Talmud.  85 

Z.  Frankel.  Beitrage  zur  Einleitung  in  den  Talmud  (in 
Monatschrift  fiir  Geschichtc  un(i  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthuius 
X,  pp.  186-194;  205-212;  258-272). 

J.  Hamburger.  Articles  Mischna  and  Talmud  in  Real 
Eycyclopadie  fiir  Bibel  und  Talmud.  Strelitz  1883.  Yol  II  pp. 
789-Y98  and  1155-1167. 

Z>.  Hoffmann.  Die  erste  Mischna  und  die  Controverseu 
der  Tanaim.     Berlin,  1882. 

B.  Pick.  Article  Talmud  in  Clintock  and  Strong's  Cyclo- 
paedia of  theological  Literature.     Vol.  X,  pp.  166-187. 

Ludiv.  A.  Rosenthal,  Ueberden  Zusammenliang  der  Mischna. 
Ein  Beitrag  zu  ihrer  Entstehungsgeschichte.  Strasburg,  1890. 

S.  M.  Schiller- Szinessy.  Article  Mishnah  in  Encyclopedia 
Britannica,  9th  Edition,  vol.  XYI,  and  Article  Talmud  in  vol. 
XXIII. 

Hermann  L.  Strack.  Einleitung  in  den  Thalniud.  Lcipsic, 
1887.  This  work  of  the  celebrated  Christian  scholar  wliich  treats 
of  the  subject  with  thoroughness,  exactness  and  impartiality,  is 
a  reprint  of  the  article  Tabnud  in  Herzog's  Real  Encyclopadie 
fiir  protestant.  Theologie.     Second  Edition,  vol.  XYIII. 

d.    Historical   Works. 

Of  modern  historical  works  which,  treating  of  the  Talinudical 
periodshed  much  light  upon  the  genesis  of  the  Talmud,  the  fol- 
lowing are  very  important: 

Julius  Fiirst.  Kultur  und  Literaturgeschichte  der  Judeu 
in  Asien  (Leipsic,  1849),  treats  of  the  Baoylonian  academies 
and  teachers  during  the  period  of  the  Amoraiin. 

/.  M.  Jost.  Geschichte  des  Judenthums  und  seiner  Secten 
(Leipsic  1857-59).  Yol  II,  pp.  13-222  treat  of  the  period  from 
the  destruction  of  the  temple  to  the  close  of  the  Talmud. 

H.  Gractz.  Geschichtc  der  Judcn,  Yol.  lY,  second  edition, 
Leipsic,  1866.  This  volume  has  been  translated  into  English 
by  James  K.  Gutheim:  History  of  tlie  Jews  from  the  Downfall 
of  the  Jewish  State  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Tahnud.  New 
York,  1873. 

G.  Karpclcs.  Geschichtc  der  jiidischcn  Literatur.  13orlin, 
1886.  pp.  265-332. 


86  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction 

e.    Encyclopedical  Works. 
§50. 

Jsaac  Lamperonti^  physician  and  Rabbi  in  Ferrara  (XVIll 
century)  wrote  in  the  Hel)rew  language  a  very  extensive  and 
useful  Encyclopedia  of  the  Talmud  and  the  Rabbinical  Decisions, 
under  the  title  of  pnX''  inS-  Five  folio  volumes  of  this  work, 
comprising  the  letters  s-D,were  published  at  Venice  (1750)  and 
Livorno  (1840).  The  remaining  volumes  have  lately  been 
published  in  8vo  at  Lyck  (1864-1874)  and  Berlin  (1885-1889), 
where  also  a  new  edition  of  the  former  volumes  appeared. 

Solomon  Rapaport.  p^c  "]1J?,  an  encyclopedical  work  in 
Hebrew  of  which  only  one  volume,  containing  the  letter  x,  ap- 
peared (Prague  1852). 

J.  Hamburger.  Real  Bncyclopaedie  fUr  Bibel  und  Talmud, 
Abtheilung  II.  Die  Talmudischen  Artikel  A-Z.  Strelitz,  1883. 
Three  Supplements  to  this  valuable  work  appeared  Leipsic 
1886-92. 

f.    Some  other  Books  of  Reference. 

§  51. 

Simon  Pciscr.  "'JiyoD  Jl^ni  =tOnomasticon  of  Biblical  per- 
sons and  of  the  Mishna  teachers  quoted  in  the  Talmud  and  in 
Midrash  (Wandsbcck  1728). 

Malachiben  Jacob  (XVIII  century),  "t^S^D  T*-  This  book 
is  a  Methodology  of  the  Talmud,  alphabetically  arranged. 
Livorno,  1767,  Berlin,  1852. 

A.  Stein.  Talmudischc  Terminologie;  alphabctisch  geordnet. 
Prague,  1869. 

Jacob  Briill.  jVi'*?  ulH  Die  Mnomonotcchnik  dcs  Talmud. 
Vienna,  1864. 

This  little  book  explains  the  Si/iianim,  i.  c.  the  mnemonical 
signs  and  symbols  so  often  met  with  in  the  Talmud  which  are 
intended  to  indicate  the  sequence  of  the  discussing  teachers  or 
of  their  arguments.     See  al)()ve  p.  60,  Nolc. 

Israel  Mash.  pziT  p'^D  Ral)l)inical  Sentences,  alphabetically 
arranged.     Warsaw,   1874. 


Auxiliaries  to  the  study  of  the  Talmud.  87 

S.  Fh.  Fretikel.  fii*r\h  jV^f  •  Index  of  the  Agadic  passages 
of  the  Talmud.     Krotoschin,  1885. 

Moses  Halevi.  DTi''!^-  Legal  and  ethical  maxiras  of  the 
Talmud,  alphabetically  arranged,     Belgrade,  1874. 

Wiesiier.  Scholien,  wissenschaftliche  Forschungen  aus  dem 
Gebiete  des  babyl.  Talmud.  I  Berachoth;  II  Sabbath;  III 
Erubin  and  Pesachim.     Prague,  1859-67. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  TALMUD. 

A.     The  Mishna. 

§52. 

a.    Latin  Translations. 

The  learned  Dutcli  G.  Surenhusius  published  (Amsterdam, 
1698-1703)  a  Latin  version  of  the  Mishna  and  of  the  com- 
mentaries of  Maimonides  and  01)adia  Bertinoro  with  annotations 
by  several  Christian  scholars. 

Remark.  Prior  to  this  publication  of  Surenhusius,  a  Latin  version 
of  some  single  Masechtoth  of  tlie  Mishna  was  published  by  various 
Christian  Scholars,  as  Sabbath  and  Erubin  by  Seb.  Schmidt  (Leipsic, 
1661);  Shekalim,  by  Joh.  Wiilfer  (Altdorf,  1680);  Aboda Zaia und  Tamid, 
by  C.  Peringer  (Altdorf,  1680). 

b.    German  Translations. 

Johaiin  Jacob  Rate.  Mishna) i  iiljersetzt  iind  erliiutcrt. 
Anspach,  1760-63. 

/.  M.  Jost,  the  celebrated  Jewish  historian,  jiublished 
(Berlin  1832-34)  a  new  (ierman  translation  in  ITebicw  characters 
with  short  introductions  and  annotations,  together  with  the 
vocalized  Mishna*  text  and  the  commentary  nnj  tp. 

A.  Saminter.     Miscliuajoth,  vokalisirter  Text  niit  deutscher 
Ucbersetzung  und  Erkliirung.     Berlin,  1886 — . 
c.    English  Translations. 

\V.  Walton.  Translation  of  the  treatises  Sabbath  and 
Erubin,  London,  1718. 

D.  A.  dc  Sola  and  M.  I.  Raphall.  p]ighLeen  treatises  from 
the  Mishna  translated.     London,  1843. 

Joseph  Barclay  published  under  the  title  "The  Talmud"  a 
translation  of  eighteen  treatises  of  the  Mishna  with  annotations. 
London,   1878. 

C.  Taylor,  Sayings  ol'  the  .lewisli  Fatliers  (the  treatise 
Aboth).  Cambridge,    1877. 

Kcmark.  The  treatise  Aboth  h;i;>  liccn  translated  into  almost  all  of 
tliu  Eviroiioan  languages. 


Translations.  89 

B,  The  Babylonian  Talmud. 

§  53. 

To  translate  the  Mislma  is  a  comparatively  easy  task. 
Its  generally  plain  and  uniform  language  and  style  of  expression, 
and  its  compendious  character  could  easily  enough  l)c  rendered 
into  another  language  especially  when  accompanied  by  some 
explanatory  notes.  But  it  is  quite  different  with  the  Gemara, 
especially  the  Babylonian.  There  are,  of  course,  also  passages 
in  the  Gemara  which  ofler  no  great  difficulties  to  a  translator 
who  is  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  idiom  in  which  the  original 
is  composed.  We  refer  to  the  historical,  legendary  and  homi- 
Ictical  portions  (Agadas)  which  the  compilers  have  interspersed 
in  every  treatise.  The  main  part  of  the  Gemara,  however,  which 
is  essentially  of  an  argumentative  character,  giving  minute 
reports  of  discussions  and  debates  on  the  law,  this  part,  so  rich 
in  dialectical  subtilities,  and  so  full  of  technicalities  and  elliptical 
expressions,  oifers  to  the  translator  almost  insurmountable 
difficulties.  Here  a  mere  version  of  the  original  will  not  do; 
neither  will  a  few  explanatory  foot  notes  be  sufficient.  It  would 
sometimes  require  a  whole  volume  of  commentary  to  supplement 
the  translation  of  a  single  chapter  of  the  original,  in  order  to 
render  fully  and  clearly  the  train  of  thought  and  dialectical 
arguments  so  idiomatically  and  tersely  expressed  therein.  ^    This 


'  A  striking  analogy  to  this  difficulty  of  translating  the  legal 
discussions  of  the  Talmud  is  found  in  an  other  branch  of  legal  literature, 
as  maybe  seen'f.-om  the  following  Note  which  a  learned  jurist 
kindly  furnished  me:  "The  Year  Books  of  the  English  Law,  sometimes 
called  the  Black  Letter  Books,  written  in  the  quaint  French  Norman, 
which  was  the  court-language  of  that  day,  have  always  been  more  or 
less  a  sealed  book,  except  to  experts  in  historical  antiquities.  By  the 
effort  of  the  Selden  Society  these  Eeports  are  being  translated  from 
time  to  time  into  the  English;  but  to  the  uninitiated,  even  in  English, 
these  reports  are  gibberish,  and  none  but  those  thoroughly  versed  in 
legal  antiquities,  and  who  have  so  to  speak  imbibed  from  a  thousand 
other  sources  the  spirit  of  the  laws  of  that  day,  will  be  much  benefited 
by  this  translation.  It  will  take  volumes  of  coramentarj',  a  hundred 
times  more  bulky  than  the  text,  to  make  this  mine  of  Englsh  common 
law  of  any  value  to  the  general  practitioner,  not  to  speak  of  the  laity. 
"It  is  caviar  to  the  general  public." 


90  HlSTORIC^VL  AND  LITERARY  INTRODUCTION. 

explains  why  tlie  various  attempts  at  translating  the  whole  of 
the  Babylonian  Talmud  have,  thus  far,  proven  a  failure,  so  that 
as  yet  only  comparatively  few  Masechtoth  of  this  Talmud  have 
been  translated,  and  these  translations  are  in  many  cases  not  in- 
telligible enough  to  be  fully  understood  by  the  reader  who  is  not 
yet  familiar  with  the  original  text  and  with  the  spirit*  of  the 
Talmud. 

a.    Latin  Translations  of  single  masechtoth. 

Blasius  Ugolinus  published  in  volume  XIX  of  his  Thesaurus 
antiquitatum  sacrarum  (Venice  1756)  a  translation  of  the 
Masechtoth  Zebachim  and  Menachoth,  and  in  vol.  XXV  (1762) 
the  Masecheth  Sanhedrin. 

G.  E.  Edzard  published  (Hamburg,  1705)  a  Latin  trans- 
lation of  the  first  two  Perakim  of  Aboda  Zara. 

b.    German  Translations. 

Johann  Jacob  Rabe.  Der  Tractat  Brachoth  nach  dor  Uloro- 
solymitan  und  Babylonischen  Gemara  iibersetzt  uud  erliiutert. 
Halle,  1777. 

C.  M.  Pinner.  Tractat  Bcrachoth.  Text  mit  deutscher 
Uebersetzung  und  Einleitung  in  den  Talmud.     Berlin,  1842. 

Ferd.  Christian  Eivald.  Aboda  Sarah^  ein  Tractat  aus  dem 
Talmud  iibersetzt.  Niirenberg,   1856  and  1868. 

A.  Sammtcr.  Tractat  Baba  Mezia.  Text  rait  deutscher 
Uebersetzung  und  Erklarung.     Berlin,  1876. 

M.  Ra^vicz.  Der  Tractat  Megilla  nebst  Tosafoth  ins  Deutsche 
iibertragen.     Frankfort  on  the  Main,  1883. 

M.  Ra7vicz.  Der  Tractat  Rosch  ha-Schanah  ins  Deutsche 
iibertragen.     Frankf.  on  the  Main,  1886. 

M.  Rawicz.  Der  Tractat  Sanhedrin  iibertragen  und  mit 
erlauterndon  Bemcrkungcn  vers(>hen.     Frankf.  1892. 

D.  O.  Straschuti.  Der  Tractat  Taanith  ins  Deutsche  iiber- 
tragen.    Halle,  1883. 

August  WUnsche.  Der  Babvl.  Talmud  in  soincn  haggadischen 
Bestandthcilen  iibersetzt,  2  voluinos.     Leipsic,  1886-88. 

Isaak  Levy.    Der  achte  Abschnitt  aus  dem  Tractate  Sabbat  h 


Translations.   .  91 

(Babli  und  Jeruschalmi)  iibcrsctzt  uud  philologisch  behaiidelt. 
Breslau,  1892. 

c.    French  T.nanslations. 

/.  Michel  Rabbino^vicz^  this  translator  of  several,  parts  of 
the  Babyl.  Talmud  adopted  the  proper  method  in  presenting  the 
mental  labor  embodied  in  that  vvork.  In  selecting  a  treatise  for 
translation  he  followed  the  example  of  Alphasi  (see  above  p.  VI) 
in  his  celebrated  epitome  of  the  Talmud,  in  omitting  all  digres- 
sions from  the  main  subject,  and  all  episodic  Agadas  which  the 
compilers  interspersed  among  the  stern  dialectical  discus- 
sions. The  main  part  thus  cleared  from  all  disturbing  and 
bewildering  by-work,  is  then  set  forth  in  a  clear  and  fluent 
translation  which  combines  correctness  with  the  noted  ease 
and  gracefulness  of  the  French  language.  Necessary  explan- 
ations are  partly  given  in  short  foot-notes,  and  partly, 
with  great  skill,  interwoven  into  the  translation  of  the  text.  An 
understanding  of  the  intricate  dialectical  discussions  is  greatly 
facilitated  by  appropriate  headings,  such  as:  Question;  Answer; 
Rejoinder;  Reply;  Objection;  Remark,  etc.  Besides,  each  treatise 
is  prefaced  by  an  introduction,  in  which  the  leading  principles 
underlying  that  part  of  the  Talmud  are  set  forth.  Of  this  lucid 
translation  the  following  parts  have  appeared: 

1.  Legislation  criminelle  du  Talmud,  containing  the  treatise 
of  Sanhcdrin  and  such  portions  of  Maccoth  as  refer  to  the  punish- 
ment of  criminals.     Paris,  18*76. 

'J.  Legislation  civile  du  Talmud,  traduction  du  traite 
Kethuboth.     Paris,   1880. 

3.  Nouveau  Commentaire  et  traduction  du  traite  Baba 
Kamma.      Paris,  1873. 

4.  Nouveau  Commentaire  et  traduction  du  traite  Baba 
Metzta.      Paris,  1878.  , 

5.  Nouveau  Commentaire  et  traduction  du  traite  Baba 
Bathra.     Paris,   1879. 

6.  La  mMicine,  les  paiens  etc.  This  volume  ccmta'ins  such 
portions  of  thirty  different  treatises  of  the  Talmud  as  refer  to 
medicine,  paganism,  etc.     Paris,    1879. 

M.  Schwab,     added  to  the  first  volume  of  his  French  trans- 


92  Historical  and  Literary  Introductiox 

lation  of  the  Palestinian  Talmud^  (Paris,  1871)  also  a  translation 
of  Berachoth  of  the  Babj^l.  Talmud. 

d.    English  Translation. 

A.  W.  Strcane.  Translation  of  the  treatise  Chagiga. 
Cambridge,  1891. 

C.     The  Palestinian  Talmud. 

§  54. 
a.    Latin  Translation. 

Blasius  Ugolinus  pul)li.shed  in  volumes  XVlI-XXXofhis 
Thesaurus  antiquitatum  saerarum  (Yenice  1755-65)  the  following 
treatises  in  Latin:  Pesachim  (vol  XVII);  Shekalim,  Yoma, 
Succah,  Rosh  Ilashanah,  Taanith,  Megilla,  Chagiga,  Betza, 
Moed  Katan  (vol.  XVIII);  Maaseroth,  Maaser  Shcni,  Challah, 
Orlah,  Biccurim  (vol.  XX);  Sanhedrin,  Maccoth  (vol.  XXV); 
Kiddushin,  Sota,  Ketliuljoth  (vol.  XXX). 

b.  German  Translations. 

Joh.  Jacob  Rabc^  besides  translating  Berachoth  in  connec- 
tion witli  that  treatise  in  tlie  Babylonian  Gemara,  as  mentioned 
above,  pul)lished:  I)cr  Tahnudische  Tractat  Feah^  iibersetzt  und 
erlautert.     Anspacli,  1781. 

August  Wunschc.  I)cr  JerusakMiiischc  Talmud  in  seinen 
haggadisclien  Bestandthcilcn  zmii  erslen  Male  in's  Deutsche 
iihertragen.     Zurich,  1880. 

c.  French  TRANSiiATioN. 

Moisc  Sclnvab.  Le  Talmud  de  Jerusalem  traduit  pour  la 
[)remi6re  fois  X  volumes.     Paris,  1  §7 1-90. 

d.  Enomsh  Translation. 

M.  Schwab^  llie  autlioi"  of  tlie  Fri'ncli  franslalion  just 
mentioned,  ])id)lislie(l  in  Eiigiisli:  Tlie  Talmud  of  Jerusalem. 
Vol.  I  Berachot  h.      London,  1880. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

B  I  B  L  I  0  G  R  A  1*  II  Y 

OF   MODERN    WORKS  AND    MONOCxRAPHS    ON    TaLMUDIC    SUBJECTS, 

(Arranged  with  reference  to  subjects  and  in  alphabetical 
order  of  authors), 

§  55, 
A  G  A  D  A, 

W.  Baclier.         Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten.     Strasburg,  Als.  1884. 

"  Die  Agada    der    Babylonischen   Aniortier,    Strasburg, 

Als.  1878, 
"  Die  Agada  der    Paliistinischen     Amoriler,    Strasburg, 

Als.  1891. 
S.    Back.  Die  Fabel  im   Talmud  u.  Midrasch   (in  Monatsschrift 

f,  Geschichte  u,  Wissenschaf t  d.  Judenthums,   XXIV, 

1875;    XXV,  1876;    XXIX    1880;    XXX,  1881;    XXXII, 

1883;  XXXIII,  1884). 
•M.  Grunbaum.  Beitnige  zur  vergleichenden  Mythologie  aus  der  Hag- 

gada  (in  Zeitschrift  d.   D.  Morgenl.    Gesellschaft,  vol. 

XXXI,   1877). 
M.  Gudemann.  Mythenmischung  in  der  Haggada  (in  Monatschrift  f. 

Geschichte     u.    Wissenschaft     d.     Judenthums,    vol. 

XXV,  1876), 
D.  Hoffmann.    Die  Antonius  Agadoth    im   Talmud   (in  Magazin    fiir 

Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums,  vol.  XIX,  1892), 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL, 
Ad.  Brull,  Trachten  der    Juden     im  nachbiblischen     Alterthum 

Frankf .  on  the  M,  1873. 
tranz  Delitzsch.   Jiidisches  Handworkerleben  zur  Zeit  Jesu,  Elangen, 

1879.     Translated  by  B.    Pick    "Jewish   Artisan   Life." 

New  York,  1883. 
M.  H,  Iriedlander.    Die  Arbeit  nach  Eibel  u.  Talmud,    Brtinn,  1891. 


94  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

L.   Herzfeld.       Metrologische  Voruntersuchungen,  Geld  und  Gewicht 

der  Juden  bis  zum  Shluss  des  Talmuds  (in  Jahrbuch 

fiir  Geschichte  der  Juden  u.  des  Judenthums,  vol.  Ill 

pp.  95-191,  Leipsic,  1863). 
Alex.  Kohut.      1st  das  Schaclispiel  im  Talmud   genannt?  (Z.  d.  D.  M. 

G.  XLVI,  130-39). 
Leopold  Law.     Graphische  Requisiten  und  Erzeugnisse  bei  den  Juden, 

Leipsic,  1870-71. 
"  "        Die  Lebensalter  in  der  Jiid.  Literatur.  Szegedin,  1875. 

B.  Zuckerman.    Ueber    Talmudische   Miinzen  u.   Gewichte.      Breslau, 

1862. 
'•  Das  jiidische  Maassystem.  Breslau,  1867. 

BIOGRAPHICAL. 
^Sam.  Back.         Elischa  ben  Abuja,  quellenmiissig  dargestellt.     Frankf . 

on  the  M.,  1891. 
A.  Blumenthal.  Rabbi  Meir,  sein  Leben  u.  Wirken.     Frankf.  1889. 
M.  Braunschweiger.     Die  Lehrer  der  Mischna,   ilir  Leben  u.  Wirken. 

Frankf.  on  the  M.,  1890. 
1^    S,   Fessler.  Mar  Samuel,  der  bedeutendste  Amora,  Breslau,  1879. 

M.  Friedlunder.   Geschichtsbilder  aus  der  Zeit  der  Tanaiten  u.  Amoriier. 

Brtinn,  1879. 
S.    Gelhhaus.      R.   Jehuda    llanasi  und  die  Redaction    der  Mischna." 

Vienna,  1876. 
D.  Hoffmann.     Mar  Samuel,  Rector  der  Academie  zu  Nahardea.  Leipsic, 

1873. 
Armand  Kaminka.     Simon  b.  Jochai   (chapter  in  the  author's  Studien 

zur  Geschichte  Galilaeas.     Berlin,  1890). 
Raphael  Levy.  Un  Tanah  (Rabbi  Meir), Etude  sur  la  vie  et  I'enseignement 

d'un  docteur  Jujf  du  II  siucle.     Paris  188;^, 
M.  L  Muhlfelder.     Rabh.    Ein   Lebensbild  zur  Geschichte  des  Talmud. 

Leipsic,  1873. 
J.  Spitz.  Rabban  Jochanan    b.  Sakkai,   Rector  der  Hochschul'? 

zu  Jabneh.     Berlin,  18S3. 
L  Trenel.  Vie  de  Hillel  1' Ancient.     Paris,  1867. 

H.  Zirndorf.      Some  Women  in  Israel  (pp.  119-270   portraying    distin- 
guished women   of  the  Talmudic  ag(>).     Pliiladelphia' 

1892. 


Bibliography.  95 

CHRONOLOGY    AND   CALENDAR. 

L.  M.  Lew'isohn.  Geschichte  u.  System  des  judischen  Kalenderwesens. 

Leipsic,  1856. 
B.  Zuckermann,    Materialien  zur  Entwickelung  der  alt  judischen  Zeit- 

rechnung.  Breslau  1882. 

CUSTOMS. 

life,     Joseph  Perles.     Die  jiidische  Hochzeit  in  nachbiblischer  Zeit.    Leipsic, 
'I  1860. 

j!  "  "         Die  Leichenfeierliclikeiten  im   nachbiblischen  Juden- 

thum.     Breslau,  1861. 
Remark.    An  English  translation  of  both  of  these  two  monographs 
is  embodied  in  "Hebrew  Characteristics";   published  by  the  American 
Jewish  Publication  Society.     New  York,  1875. 

M.  Fluegel.  Gedanken  iiber  religiose  Briuiche  und  Anschauungcn . 
Cincinnati,  1888. 

DIALECTICS. 

Aaroti  Hahn.  The  Rabbinical  Dialectics.  A  history  of  Dialecticians 
and  Dialectics  of  the  Mishna  and  Talmud,  Cincinnati. 
1879. 

EDUCATION. 

Blach-Oudensherg.    Das  Paedagogische  im  Talmud.    Halberstadt.  1880. 
M.   Duschak.      Schulgesetzgebung  u.   Methodik   der  alten  Israeliten. 

Vienna,  1872. 
Sam.  Marcus.    Zur  Schul-Paedagogik  des  Talmud.     Berlin,  1SGG. 
Joseph  Simon.    L' education  et  I'instruction  d'apres  la  Bible  et  le  Talmud 

Leipsic,  1879. 
J.    Wiesen.         Geschichte  und  Methodik  der  Schulwesens   im  talmudi- 
schen  Alterthum,     Strasburg,  1892. 

ETHICS. 

M.  Block  Die  Ethik  der  Halacha,   Budapest,  1886. 

Herman  Cohen.    Die    Nachstenliebe    im    Talmud.      Ein    Gutachten . 

Marburg,  1886. 
M.   Duschak.      Die  Moral  der  Evangelien  u.  des  Talmuds.    Briinn  1877. 
H.  B.  Fassel.      Tugend-und    Rechtslehre  des  Talmud.     Vienna,  1848. 


96  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

E.  Orimebaam.  Die  Sittenlehre  des  Judenthums   andern  Bekentnissen 

gegeniiber,  Strasburg,  1878. 
31.  Gudemann,  Nachstenliebe.  Vienna,  1890. 
Alex.  Kohut.      The  Ethics  of  the  Fathers.    A  series  of  lectures.    New 

York,  1885. 
L.   Lazarus.       Zur  Charakteristik  der  talmudischen  Ethik.    Breslau, 

1877. 
Marc.  Levy.        Essai  sur  la  morale  de  Talmud.     Paris  1891. 
Luzzattn.  Israelitische    Moraltheologie,     deutsch     von     M.    Joel, 

Breslau,  1870. 
S.   Schaffer.        Das  Recht  und  seine  Stellung   zur  Moral  nach  talmud- 

ischer  Sitten,  und  Rechtslehre.  Frankf .  on  the  M.,  1889. 
N.  J.  Weinstein.    Geschichtlidhe  Entwickelung  dos  Gebotes  der  Nachsten- 
liebe  innerhalb  des  Judenthums,    kritisch   beleuchtet. 

Berlin,  1891. 

EXEGESIS. 

//.  .S.  Hirarhfeld.     IJalachische  Exegese.      Berlin,  1840. 
"  "  Die  Hagadische  Exegese.     Berlin,  1847. 

.S'.  Wahlherg.  Darke  Hashinnuyim,  on  the  methods  of  artificial  inter- 
pretation of  Scriptures  in  the  Talmud  and  Midrash. 
(in  Hebrew)  Lemberg,  1870. 

GE    GRAPH Y  AND   HISTORY. 
A.  Berliner.        Beitrtige  zur  Geographic  u.  Ethnographic   Babyloniens 

im  Talmud  u.  Midrasch.     Berlin  1883. 
J.  Derenhuurg.  Essai  sur  I'histoire    et  la   geographic  de   la  !^alestine 

d'apres  les  Talmuds  et  les  autres  sources  rabbiniques. 

Paris,  1867. 
11.  Hildesheimer.    Beitrage  zur  Geographie  Palastinas.     Berlin,  1886. 
Armaiid  Kaminka.     Studien  zur  Goschichte  Galilaeas.     Berlin,  1890. 
Ad.  Neubauer.    La   g6ographie  du  Talmud.     M6moire    couronn6  par 

racad6mie  des  inscriptions  et  belles-lettres.   Paris,  1868. 

LAW. 

a.    In   Gkneual. 

Jacques  Levy.  La  jurisprudence  du  Penlateuque  et  du  Talmud. 
Constantino.  1879. 


Btbt.1()(;rapiiy, 


97 


<S'.  Mayer.  Die    Rechte     der    Israeliten,     Atliener    und    Rumer. 

Leipsic,  1862-66. 

1.  L.  Saalschutz.  Das  Mosaische  Recht,  nebst  den  vervoUstandigenden 
thalmudisch-rabbinischen  Bestimmungen.  2-nd  Edi- 
tion.    Berlin,  1853. 

S.  Schaffer.  Das  Recht  u.  seine  Stellung  zur  Moral  nach  talraudischer 
Sitten-und  Kechtslehre.     Frankf.  on  the  M.,  1889. 

I.  M.  Wise.  The  Law  (in  the  Hebrew  Review,  Vol.  I  pp.  12-32. 
Cincinnati,  1880). 

b.  Judicial  Courts. 

J.   Selden,  De  Synedriis  et  praefecturis  juridicis  veterum  Ebrae- 

orum.     London,  1650;  Amsterd.  1679;     Frankf.,  1696. 

E.  Hoffmann.  Der  oberste  Gerichtshof  in  der  Stadt  des  Heiligthums. 
Berlin,  1878. 

c.  Evidence  in  Law. 

/.  Blutnenstein.  Die  verschiedenen  Eidesarten  nach  raosaisch-talmud- 
ischem  Rechte.     Frankf.  on  the  M.,  18S3. 

Z.  Frankel.  Der  Gerichtliche  Beweis  nach  mosaisch  talniudischem 
Rechte.     Berlin.  1846. 

D.  Fink.  "Miggo"  als  Rechtsbeweis  im  bab.  Talm.    Leipsic,  1891. 

d.    Criminal  Law. 
O.  BaJir.  Das  Gesetz  liber  falsche  Zeugen,  nach  Bibel  u.  Talmud. 

Berlin,  1862. 
P.  B.  Benny.      The  Criminal  Code  of  the  Jews.     London,  1880. 
M.  Duschak.        Das  mosaisch-talmudische  Strafrecht.     Vienna,    18C9. 
J.  Furst.  Das  peinliche    Rechtsverfahren  im    jlid.    Alterthum. 

Heidelberg,  1870. 

E.  Goitein.         Das  Vergeltungsprinzip  im  bibl.  u.  talmudischen  Straf- 

recht (in  Zeitschrift  f  iir  Wissenschaft  d.  J.  Vol.  XIX. 
S.  Mendelsohn.  The  Criminal  Jurisprudence  of   the  ancient  Hebrews 

compiled    from    the    Talmud     and    other    rabbinical 

writings.     Baltimore,  1891. 
Julius  Vargha.  Defense  in  criminal  cases  with  the  ancient  Hebrews, 

translated  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  author's  large 

work  "Vertheidigung  in  Criminalfallun",  and  publisch- 

ed  in  the  Hebrew  Review,  Vol.  I  pp.  254-268.  Cincinnati, 

1880. 


98 


Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 


Thonisson. 


M.   Block. 


H.  B.  Fassel. 


L.  Auerbach. 
S.  Keyzer, 


I.    Wiesner,        Der  Bann  in  seiner  geschichtlichen   Entwickeluug  auf 

dem  Boden  des  Judenthums.     Leipsic,  1864. 

La  peine  de  mort  dans  le  Talmud,     Brussels,  1886. 
e.    Civil  Law. 

Die  Civilprocess"Ordniing  nach  mosaisch-rabbinischem 

Rechte.     Budapest.  1882. 

Das  mosaisch-rabbinische  CivUrecht.     Gr.    Kanischa. 

1852-54. 

Das  mosaisch-rabbinische    Gerichtsverfahren  in  civil- 

rechtlischen  Sachen.     Gr.  Kanischa,  1859. 

Das  jlidische  Obligationsrecht.     Berlin,  1871. 
Dissertatio  de  tutela  secundum  jus  Talmudicum.  Leyden 

1847. 
f.    Inheritance  and  Testament. 
L.   Bodenheimer.    Das  Testament.     Crefeld,  1847. 
Eduard  Gans.    Grundziige    des    mosaisch-talmudischen  Erbrechts  (in 

Zunz'  Zeitschrif  t  f  iir  die  Wissenschaf  t  dts  Judenthums 

p.  419  sq.). 
Moses  Mendelssohn.     Ritualgesetze   der  Juden,  betreffend  Erbschaften 

Vormundschaft,    Testamente    etc.     Berlin,    1778,   and 

several  later  editions. 

De  Successionibus  in  bona  defuncti  ad  leges  Hebrae 

orum.     London,  1646;  Frankf.,  1696. 
g.    Police  Law. 

Das    mosaisch-talmudische     Polizeirecht.     Buda   Pest, 

1878.     Transated  into  English  by  I.  W,  Lilienthal  in  the 

Hebrew  Review  Vol.  I,  Cincinnati  1881. 

h.    Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce. 

Die  Familie  nach  mos.-talmud.  Lehre.     Breslau,  1867. 

Das  mosaisch-talmudische  Eherecht.     Vienna,  1864, 

Grundlinien  des  mosaisch-talmud .  E  herechts .     Breslau, 

1860. 

Die  Autonomie   der    Rabbinen   und  das    Princip  der 

jiidischen  Ehe.     Schwerin,  1847. 
L.   Lichtschem.  Die    Elie    nach    mosaisch-talm,     Auffassung.     Leipsic, 

1879. 


Joh.  Selden. 


M.    Block, 


P.  Buchkolz. 
M.  Duschak. 
Z.   Frankel. 

S.  Holdheim, 


Btbliograimiv. 


99 


M.  Mielziner.  The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  and  its  relation  to  the  law  of  the 
State.     Cincinnati,  1884. 

Joh.  Selden.  Uxor  Ebraica  sive  de  nuptiis  et  divortiis  etc.  London, 
1646. 

I.  Stern.  Die  Frau  im  Talmud,    Ztirich,  1879. 

1.    Laws  Concerning  Slavery. 

M.  Mielziner.     Verlialtnisse  der  Sklaven  bei  den  alten  Hebraern  nach 
biblischen   und  talmudischen    Quellen,     Copenhagen, 
(Leipsic),  1859. 
An  English   translation  of  this  treatise  was  published  by  Prof.  H. 

I.  Schmidt  in   the  Gettysburg  Evang.   Review    vol   XIII,    No  51,  and 

reprinted  in  the  Am.  Jew's  Annual,     Cincinnati,  1886. 

I.    Winter.  Stellung  der  Sklaven  bei  den  Juden.     Breslau,  1886. 

Zadok-Kahn.      L'esclavage  selon  la  Bible  et  le  Talmud.     Paris,  1867, 
"         "  Sklaverei  nach  Bibel  u.  Talmud.    Deutsch  von  Singer. 

Berlin,  1888. 

LINGUISTICS. 

A.  Berliner.       Beitrage  zur  hebraischen    Grammatik  im  Talmud  u. 

Midras«h.     Berlin,  1879. 
Ad.  Brail  Fremdsprachliche  Redensarten  u.  Worter  in  den  Tal- 

muden  u.  Midraschim.    Leipsic,  1869. 
N.  Bridl.  Fremdsprachliche  Worter  in  den  Talmuden  u.  Midra- 

schim (in  Jahrbticher  fiir  jiid.  Geschichteu.  Literatur  I, 

123  220).     Frankf.  o.  M.,  1874. 
Jos.  Perles.  Etymologise  he    Studien  zur  Kunde  der    rabbinischen 

Sprache  und  Alterthiimer.     Breslau,  1871, 
O.  Riilf.  Zur  Lautlehre  der   aramaisch-talmudischen  Dialacte. 

Breslau,  1879. 
Mich.   Sachs.      Beitrage      zur    Sprac   -u   nd  AlterthuDasforschung.    2 

volumes,     Berlin,  1852-o'a. 

MATHEMATICS, 

B.  Zucleermanv     T  as  Mathematische  im   Talmud.    Beleuchtung  und 

Elauterung  der  Talmudstellen  mathematischen  Inhalts. 
Jbieslau,  1878. 


100  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

MEDICINE,   SURGERY  etc. 
Jos.  Bergel.         Die  Medizin  der  Talmudisten.     Leipsic,  1885. 
Joacli.  Halpern.  Beitriige  zurGeschichte  der  talm.  Chiniigie.  Breslau, 

1869. 
A.  H.  Israels.     Collectanea     Gynaecologica    ex  Talniude    Babylonico. 

Groningen,  l'^45. 
L.  Katzenelsson.  Die  Osteologie  der    Talmudisten.     Eine    talmudisch- 
anatonische  Studie  (in  Hebrew).     St.  Petersbourg,  188^. 
R.  I.  Wunderbar.     Biblisch-talmudische     Medicin,    3  volumes.     Riga 
(Leipsic),  1850-60. 
NATURAL    HISTORY    AND  SCIENCES. 
Jos.  Bergel,       Studlen  fiber  die  naturwissenschaftlichen  Kenntnisse  der 

Talmudisten.     Leipsic,   1880. 
M.  Duschak.       Zur  Botanik  des  Talmud.     Buda  Pest,  1870. 
L.   Lewysohn.     Die  Zoologie  des  Talmuds.     Frankf.  on  the  M.,  1858. 
Imm.   Low.         Aramiiische  Pflanzennamen.     Leipsic,  1881. 

PARSE EISM  IN  THE  TALMUD. 
Alexander  Kohut.    Was  hat  die  talm.  Eschafcologie  aus  dem  Parsismus 
aufgenommen?  (in  Z.  d.  D.  M.  G.  vol.  XXI  pp    552  91). 
"  *'    Die  jiidische  Angelologie  und  Daenioiiologie  in  ihrer 

Abhangigkeit  vom  Parsismus.     Leipsic,  1866. 
"  ♦'    Die    talmudisch  -  midraschische    Adamssage     in    ihrer 

Riickbeziehung    auf  die  pers.     Yima  und    Meshiasage, 
in  Z.  d.  D.  M.  G.  XXV  pp.  59-94. 
"  "     Die Namen  der  pers.  u.  babylonischen  Feste  ini  Talmud 

(in  Kobak's  Jeschurun,   vol.  VIII,    49-6 1).     Tlio  same 
subject  in  Revue,  des  Etudes  Juives,  Vol.  XXIV. 
POETRY. 
S.   Seklcs.  The  Poetry  of  the  Talmud.     New  York,  1880. 

PROVERBS,  MAXIMS,  P.ARABLES. 
L.    Dukes.  Rabbinisclie  Bhnnenlese.     Leipsic,   1844. 

"  "  Rabbinische  Sprachkunde.     Vienna,  1851. 

J.  R.  Fursicnthal.     Rabbinische  Anthologie.     Breslau,  1834. 
QiusepiJe  Levi.     Parabeln,     Legondcn   u.    Gedanketi    aus     TaJinud    u. 
Midra8ch,aus  dem  Italienischen  ins  Deutsche  iibetragen 
von  L.  Seligmann      Leipsic,  1863. 
Lotcenstem.        Sentenzen,  Spriiche  u.  Lebensregeln  aus  doiii  Talmud^ 
Berlin,  1887. 


Bibliography.  loi 

PSYCHOLOGY. 
M.  Jacvbson.      Versuch    einer    Psychologie    des  Talmud.     Hamburg, 

1878. 
1.  Wicsner.         Zur  talmudischen  Psychologie  (in  Magazin  f  fir  jiidische 

Geschichte  und  Literatur,  Vol.  I,  1874,  and  II,  1875). 

RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  AND  HISTORY. 

M.  Friedldnder.  Ben  Dosa  und  seine  Zeit,  oder  Einfluss  der  heidnischen 
Philosophie  auf  das  Judenthum  u.  Christenthum. 
Prague,  187a. 

M.  Gudeviann.     Keligionsgeschichtliche  Studien.     Leipsic,  18"6. 

M.  Joel.  Blicke   in  die   Religionsgeschiclite  zu  Anfang  des  II 

Jahrhunderts.     Breslau,  1880. 

A.  JSlager.  Die    Religionsphilosophie  des  Talmud.     Leipsic,  1864. 

SUPERNATURALISM  AND  SUPERSTITION. 

Gideon  Brecher.     Das  Transcendentale,  Magik  und  niagische  Hoilarten 

im  Talmud.     Vienna,  1850. 
David  Joel.        Der  Aberglaube  und  die  Stellung  des  Judenthums  zu 

demselben.     2  parts.     Breslau,  1881-83. 
Alex.  Kohut.      Jiidische  Angelologie  u.  Daemonologie  in  ihrer  Abhiln- 

gigkeit  vom  Parsismus.     Leipsic,  1866. 
S(d.   Thein.         Das    Princip  des  planetarischon    Einflusses    nach   der 

Anschauung  des  Talmud.     Vienna,  1876, 
S.  Wolffsohn.     Oneirologie  im  Talmud,  oder  der  Tiaum  nach   Auffas- 

sung  des  Talmuds.     Breslau,  1874. 

POPULAR  TREATISES  AND  LECTURES  ON  THE  TALMUD. 

Tobias  Cohn.      Der  Talmud.     Ein  Vortrag.     Vienna,  1866. 

Emanuel  Deutsch.    What  is  the  Talmud?    (in  the  Quarterly  Review  for 

October,    1867,   reprinted    in   the    Literary     Remains, 

New  York,  1874). 
M.  Ehrentheil.    Der  Geist  des  Talmud.     Breslau,  1887. 
Karl  Fischer.     Gutmeinung   iiber  den  Talmud.     Vienna,  1883. 
Sams.  Raph.  Hirsch.     Beziehung  des  Talmuds  zum  Judenthum  und  zur 

sozialen  Stellung  seiner  Bekenner.     Frankf.  o.  M.,  1884. 
P.  I.  Hershon.     Talmudic  Miscellany.     London,  188(1. 


102 


Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 


F.  L.  Hershon.   Treasures  of  the  Talmud.     London,  1882. 
Abram  S.  Isaacs.     Stories  from  the  Rabbis.     New  York.  1893. 
A.  Jellinek  Der  Talmud.     Zwei  Eeden.     Vienna,  1865. 

Der  Talmndjude.    4  Reden.     Vienna,  1883-83. 

Gutachten  iiber  den  Talmud.    Breslau,  1877. 

Der  wahre  Talmudjude.     Die  wichtigsten    Grundsatze 

des  talmudischen  Scliriftthums  iiber  das  sittliche  Leben 

des  Menschen.    Berlin,  1893. 

Die  "Wahrheit  iiber  den  Talmud,  (aus  dem  Franzosischen 

"La  verite  sur  le  Talmud",  iibersetzt  von  S.  Mannheimer, 

Basel,  1860. 

La  Controverse  sur  le  Talmud  sous  Saint  Louis,   Paris, 

1881. 

The  Talmud,   Selections   from  the  contents  of  that  an- 
cient book.     London,  1876. 
Ludwig  Philippson.    Zva     Characteristik     des   Talmuds     (in    "WeJt- 

bewegende    Fragen".     Vol.   II,   pp.   349-416.     Leipsic, 

1869). 
Em.  Schreiber.  The  Talmud.     A  series  of  (4)  Lectures.     Denver,  1884. 
L.   Stern.  Ueber  den  Talmud.    Vortrag.  Wurzburg,  1875. 

J.   Stern.  Lichtstrahlen  aus  dem  Talmud.     Zurich,  1883. 

A.   A.    Wolff.     Talmudf  jender  (the  Enemies  of  the  Talmud), in  Danish. 

Copenhagen,  1878. 
AuguHt  Wimsche.     Der  Talmud.     Eine  Skizze.     Zurich,  1879. 


M.   Joel, 
Albert  Katz. 


S.    Klein. 


Isidore  Loeb. 


H.  Folano. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

OPINIONS  ON  THE  VALUE  OF  THE  TALMUD. 

§  5^. 

No  literary  monument  of  antiquity  has  ever  been  subject  to 
so  different  and  opposite  views  and  opinions,  as  the  Talmud.  Its 
strict  followers  generally  loo  ked  upon  it  as  the  very  embodiment 
of  wisdom  and  sagacity,  and  as  a  work  whose  authority  was 
second  only  to  that  of  the  Bible.  In  the  non- Jewish  literature 
it  was  often  decried  as  '  'one  of  the  most  repulsive  books  that 
exist",  as  ''a  confused  medley  of  perverted  logic,  absurd  subtile- 
ties,  foolish  tales  and  fables,  and  full  of  profanity,  superstition 
and  even  obscenity",  or  at  the  most,  as  ''an  immense  heap  of 
rubbish  at  the  bottom  of  which  some  stray  pearls  of  Eastern 
wisdom  are  hidden." 

It  is  certain  that  many  of  those  who  thus  assumed  to  pass 
a  condemning  judgment  upon  the  gigantic  work  of  the  Talmud 
never  read  nor  were  able  to  read  a  single  page  of  the  same  in  the 
original,  but  were  prompted  by  religious  prejudice  and  antag- 
onism, or  they  based  their  verdict  merely  on  those  disconnected 
and  often  distorted  passages  which  Eisenmenger  and  his  consorts 
and  followers  picked  out  from  the  Talmud  for  hostile  purposes. 

Christian  scholars  who  had  a  deeper  insight  into  the  Talmud- 
ical  literature,  without  being  blinded  by  religious  prejudices, 
expressed  themselves  quite  differently  on  the  character  and  the 
merits  of  that  work,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  few 
quotations. 

Johann  Buxtorf^  in  the  preface  to  his  Lexicon  Chald.  et 
Talmudicum,  says:  "The  Talmud  contains  many  legal,  medical, 
physical,  ethical,  political,  astronomical,  and  other  excellent 
documents  of  sciences,  which  admirably  commend  the  history  of 
that  nation  and  time;  it  contains  also  luminous  decisions  of  an- 
tiquity; excellent  sayings;  deep  thoughts,  full  of  grace  and  sense; 
and  numerous  expressions  which  make  the  reader  not  only  better, 
but  also  more  wise  and  learned,    and  which,  like  unto  flashing 


104  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

jewels,  grace  the  Hebrew  speech   not   less  than  all  those  Greek 
and  Roman  phrases  adorn  their  languages." 

Other  favorable  opinions  expressed  by  Christian  scholars  of 
the  sixteenth  to  eighteenth    centuries    are    collected  in    Karl 
Fischer's  ' 'Gat meinung  Liljer  don  'L\ihnad dor  Hcbraer. "    Vienna, 
1883. 

Of  such  scholars  as  belong  to  our  time,  the  following  may  be 
quoted  here. 

The  late /'/'v/.  Dc'Iitzsch  \\\  \\\a  '•Jiidischcs  Hamhverkcrlebcn 
zur  Zeit  Jesu"'  says: 

"Those  who  have  not  in  some  degree  accomplished  the 
extremely  difficult  task  of  reading  this  work  for  themselves,  will 
hardly  be  able  to  form  a  clear  idea  of  this  pulynomical  colossus. 
It  is  an  immense  speaking-hall,  in  which  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  voices,  ot  at  least  five  centuries,  are  heard  to  com- 
mingle. A  law,  as  we  all  know  from  experience,  can  never  l)e 
so  precisely  formulated  that  there  does  not  remain  room  for 
various  interpretations;  anil  question  upon  question  constantly 
arises  as  to  the  application  of  it  to  the  endless  multiplicity  of  the 
existing  relations  of  life.  Just  imagine  about  ten  thousand 
decrees  concerning  Jewish  life  classilied  according  to  the  spliercs 
of  life,  and  in  addition  to  these,  about  live  hundred  scribes  and 
lawyers,  mostly  from  Talostine  and  Babylon,  taking  up  one  after 
another  of  these  decrees  as  the  toi)ic  of  examination  and  debate, 
and,  discussing  withliiiir-spiittingacuteness,  every  slia(l(M)fniean- 
ingivnd  pi-ariical  ap|)licati(ni;  ami  imagine,  further,  thattln^  fin( - 
spun  thread  of  this  iutiM'prctatiou  oC  decrcuis  isiVc(juently  lost  in 
digressions,  and  that,  after  having  traversed  long  distances  of  such 
desert-sand,  you  find,  liei-e  and  there,  an  oasis,  consisting  of 
sayings  and  accounts  of  more  general  interest.  Then  you  may 
have  some  slight  idcaollhis  vast,  and  of  its  kind,  nni(|ne,  juridic 
codex,  compared  with  whose  (•(nn))ass  all  the  law-books  of  other 
nations  are  but  Lilliputians,  and  beside  whose  vai-iegated, buzzing 
market  din.  they  i-epi-esent  hut- ((iiiet-  si  ndy-chambers." 

/.  Alexander^  in  his  book  on  llic  Jc^n's:  their  /V.f/,  Present 
and  /'V/Z/z/v  (Lorn  Ion,    lis  TO),  says: 


Opinions  on  the  value  of  the  Talmud.  105 

"The  Talmud,  as  it  now  stands,  is  almost  the  whole  literature 
of  the  Jews  during  a  thousand  years.  Commentator  followed 
upon  commentator,  till  at  last  the  whole  became  an  immense 
bulk;  the  original  Babylonian  Talmud  alone  consists  of  2947  folio 
pages.  Out  of  such  literature  it  is  easy  to  make  quotations  which 
may  throw  an  odium  over  the  whole.  But  fancy  if  the  production 
of  a  thousand  years  of  English  literature,  say,  from  the  "History" 
of  the  venerable  Bedeto  Milton's  "Paradise  Lost,"  were  thrown 
together  into  a  number  of  uniform  folios,  and  judged  in  like  man- 
ner; if  because  some  superstitions  monks  wrote  silly  "Lives  of 
Saints,"  therefore  the  works  of  John  Bunyan  should  also  be 
considered  worthless.  The  absurdity  is  too  obvious  to  require 
another  word  from  me.  Such,  however,  is  the  continual  treat- 
ment the  Talmud  receives  both  at  the  hand  of  its  friends  and  of 
its  enemies.  Both  will  find  it  easy  to  quote  in  behalf  of  their 
preconceived  notions,  but  the  earnest  student  will  rather  try  to 
weigh  the  matter  impartially,  retain  the  good  he  can  find  even  in 
the  Talmud,  and  reject  what  will  not  stand  the  test  of  God's  word." 

Tne  impartial  view  of  the  Talmud  taken  by  modern  Jewish 
scholars,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  opinion  expressed  by 
the  late  Prof.  Graeiz  in  his  *  'History  of  the  Jews"  (vol.  IV. 
308  sq.). 

'*The  Talmud  must  not  be  considered  as  an  ordinary  literary 
work  consisting  of  twelve  folios;  it  bears  'not  the  least  internal 
resemblance  to  a  single  literary  production;  but  forms  a  world 
of  its  own  which  must  be  judged  according  to  its  own  laws.  It 
is,  therefore,  extremely  difficult  to  furnish  a  specific  sketch  of  the 
Talmud,  seeing  that  a  familiar  standard  or  analogy  is  wanting. 
And  however  thoroughly  a  man  of  consummate  talent  may  have 
penetrated  its  spirit  and  become  conversant  with  its  peculiarities, 
he  would  scarcely  succeed  in  such  a  task.  It  may,  in  some 
respects,  be  compared  with  the  Patristic  literature,  which  sprang 
up  simultaneously.  But  on  closer  inspection,  this  comparison 
mill  also  fail.... 

The  Talmud  has  at  different  times  been  variously  judged 
on  the  most  heterogeneous  assumptions;  it  has  been  condemned 
and  consigned  to  the  flames,  simply  because  it  was  presente 


106  Historical  and  Literary  Intrduction. 

in  its  unfavorable  aspect  without  taking  into  consideration  its 
actual  merits.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Babylonian  Tal- 
mud labors  under  some  defects,  like  any  other  mental  product, 
which  pursues  a  single  course  with  inexorable  consistency  and 
undeviating  dogmatism.  These  defects  may  be  classified  under 
four  heads:  the  Talmud  contains  some  unessential  and  trivial 
subjects,  which  it  treats  with  much  importance  and  a  serious 
air;  it  has  adopted  from  its  Persian  surroundings  superstitious 
practices  and  views,  which  presuppose  the  agency  of  interme- 
diate spiritual  beings,  withcraft,  exorcising  formulas,  magical 
cures  and  interpretations  of  dreams  and,  hence,  are  in  conflict 
with  the  spirit  of  Judaism;  it  further  contains  several  uncharit- 
able utterances  and  provisions  against  members  of  other  na- 
tions and  creeds;  lastly  it  favors  a  bad  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture, absurd,  forced  and  frequently  false  commentations.  For 
these  faults  the  whole  Talmud  has  been  held  responsible  and 
been  denounced  as  a  work  devoted  to  trifles,  as  a  source  of  im- 
morality and  trickery,  without  taking  into  consideration,  that 
it  is  not  a  work  of  a  single  author  who  must  be  responsible 
for  every  word,  and  if  it  be  so,  then  the  whole  Jewish  people 
was  its  author.  Over  six  centuries  are  crystallized  in  the  Tal- 
mud with  animated  distinctness,  in  their  peculiar  costumes, 
modes  of  speech  and  of  thought,  so  to  say  a  literary  Herculaneum 
and  Pompeii,  not  weakened  by  artistic  imitation,  which  trans- 
fers a  colossal  picture  to  the  narrow  limits  of  a  miniature.  It  is, 
therefore,  no  wonder,  if  in  this  world  sublime  and  mean,  great 
and  small,  serious  and  ridiculous,  Jewish  and  heathen  elements, 
the  altar  and  the  ashes,  arc  found  in  motley  mixture.  Those 
odious  dicta  of  which  Jew-haters  have  taken  hold,  were  in 
most  cases  nothing  else  but  the  utterances  of  a  momentary  in- 
dignatian,  to  which  an  individual  had  given  vent  and  which  were 
preserved  and  embodied  in  the  Talmud  by  over-zealous  disci- 
ples, who  were  unwilling  to  omit  a  single  expression  of  the 
revered  ancients.  But  these  utterances  are  richly  counterbal- 
anced by  the  maxims  of  benevolence  and  philanthropy  towards 
every  man,  regardless  of  creed  and  nationality,  which  are  also 
preserved   in  the  Talmud.     As  count rrpoise  to  the  rank  super- 


Opinions  on  the  value  of  the  Talmud.  lOT 

stition,  there  are  found  therein  sharp  warnings  against  supersti- 
tious, heathen  practices  (Darke  Emori),  to  which  subject  a 
whole  section,  under  the  name  oi  Perek  Emorai,  is  devoted,  i 

"The  Babylonian  Talmud  is  especially  characterized  and 
distinguished  from  the  Palestinian,  by  high-soaring  contempla- 
tions, a  keen  understanding,  and  Hashes  of  thought  which  fit- 
fully dart  through  the  mental  horizon.  An  incalculable  store 
of  ideas  and  incentives  to  thinking  is  treasured  in  the  Talmud, 
l)ut  not  in  the  form  of  finished  themes  that  may  be  appropriated 
i;i  a  semi-somnolent  state,  but  with  the  fresh  coloring  of  their 
inception.  The  Babylonian  Talmud  leads  into  the  laboratory 
of  thought,  and  its  ideas  may  be  traced  from  their  embryonic 
motion  up  to  a  giddy  height,  whither  they  at  times  soar  into  the 
region  of  the  incomprehensible.  For  this  reason  it  became, 
more  than  the  Jerusalemean,  the  national  property,  the  vital 
breath,  the  soul  of  the  Jewish  people ". 

Why  study  the  Talmud  ? 

§58. 

Some  years  ago,  the  author  addressed  the  Classes  of  the 
Hebrew  Union  College  on  this  question.  An  abstract  of  that 
address  may  find  hero  a  proper  place  for  the  benefit  of  younger 
students: 

Upon  resuming  our  labors  for  a  new  scholastic  year,  I  wish 
to  address  the  students  regarding  that  branch  of  instruction 
which  I  have  the  privilege  of  teaching  in  the  collegiate  classes 
of  this  institution.  I  wish  to  answer  the  question: 

FOR  what  purpose  DO  WE  STUDY  THE  TALMUD? 

There  was  a  time — and  it  is  not  so  very  long  since  it  passed 
]iy — there  was  a  time  when  such  a  question  would  scarcely 
have  entered  into  the  mind  of  one  who  was  preparing  for  the 
Jewish  ministry.  For  the  Talmud  was  then  still  regarded  as 
the  embodiment  of  all  religious  knowledge  ail  Jewish  lore. 
Its  authority  was  considered  second  only  to  that  of  the  Bible, 
its  study  regarded  as  a  religious  service,  a  God-pleasing  work  in 


»     Sabbath  66a;  Toseplha  ch.  VII,  VIII. 


108  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

which  all  pious  and  literate  men  in  Israel  were  engaged,  even 
those  who  did  not  aspire  to  a  rabbinical  office.  He,  to  whom 
the  Talmud  was  a  terra  incognita  was  looked  upon  as  an  Am 
Haarets,  a  rustic  and  illiterate  man,  who  had  no  right  to  ex- 
press an  opinion  in  religious  matters.  How  then  could  he  who 
wanted  to  become  a  religious  guide  and  leader  in  Israel  ask, 
for  what  purpose  is  the  Talmud  to  be  studied  ?  The  Talmudic 
literature  was  the  very  source  of  the  Jewish  law.  By  it  all 
conditions  of  the  religious  and  moral  life  were  ordered.  How 
could  a  rabbi  expect  to  be  able  to  answer  and  decide  the  many 
religious  questions  laid  before  him  daily,  without  a  thorough 
acquaintance  with  that  source  ? 

But  it  is  quite  different  in  our  time,  wliich  looks  upon  the 
Talmud  with  less  reverential  eyes.  The  mere  study  of  its  lite- 
rature is  not  any  longer  considered  a  religious  act  that  secures 
eternal  bliss  and  salvation;  neither  is  the  Talmud  any  longer 
regarded  as  the  highest  authority  by  whose  dicta  questions  of 
religion  and  conscience  are  to  be  finally  decided. 

Of  what  use  is  the  study  of  the  Talmud  in  our  time  ?  Is  it 
nowadays  absolutely  necessary  even  for  the  Jewish  theologian, 
for  a  Jewish  minister,  to  cultivate  this  hard  and  abstruse  branch 
of  literature  ?  Would  it  not  be  more  useful  if  our  students  in- 
stead of  devoting  a  part  of  their  valuable  time  to  this  obsolete 
and  antiquated  study  would  apply  it  to  some  other  branch  of 
knowledge  which  is  of  more  import  to,  and  has  more  bearing 
upon  the  present  time? 

It  sometimes  seemed  to  me  as  if  I  could  read  this  question 
from  the  faces  of  some  of  our  students  during  the  Ta,lmudic  in- 
struction, especially  when  we  just  happened  to  have  before  us 
some  abstruse  passages  in  the  Talmud  in  which  seemingly  quite 
indifferent  and  trifling  subjects  are  minutely  treated  in  lengthy 
discussions,  or  where  the  whole  train  of  thojight  widely  ditlbrs 
from  modern  cohception  and  modern  ways  of  thinking. 

Nay,  I  have  even  heard  such  a  question  from  tlic  lips  of 
men  who  take  great  interest  in  our  college,  of  earnest  and  judi- 
cious men  who  are  highly  educated  and  versed  in  our  literature 
and    who  thomsc^lves  in   their  youth  imbibed  spiritual  drauglits 


Opinions  on  the  value  op  the  Talmud.  109 

from  the  Talmudic  fountain.  Why  trouble  our  students  with 
that  irksome  and  useless  branch  of  literature,  why  not  instead 
of  it  rather  take  up  other  subjects  of  more  modern  thought? 

Let  us,  therefore,  shortly  consider  the  question:  For  what 
purpose  do  we  study  the  Talmud,  or  why  is  that  study  indispen- 
sable for  every  one  who  prepares  for  the  Jewish  ministry  ? 

In  the  first  place,  my  young  friends,  I  wish  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  Talmud  is  a  product  of  the  mental 
labors  of  our  sages  and  teachers  during  a  period  of  eight  hun- 
dred to  one  thousand  years,  and  that  the  pages  of  this  volumin- 
ous literary  work  offer  a  natural  reflection  of  whatever  the 
Jewish  mind  has  thought,  perceived  and  felt  during  that  long 
period  under  the  most  different  circumstances  and  times,  under 
joyful  and  gloomy  events,  under  elevating  and  oppressing  in- 
fluences. 

I  bog  you  to  consider  furthermore  what  a  powerful  and 
decided  influence  this  gigantic  literary  work  after  its  final  con- 
clusion has  exercised  upon  the  mind  and  the  religious  and  mo- 
ral life  of  the  professors  of  Judaism  during  fourteen  centuries 
up  to  our  time.  Consider,  how  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  their 
general  occupation  with,  and  veneration  for  the  Talmud  that 
our  ancestors  during  the  dark  centuries  of  the  Middle  Ages,  did 
not  become  mentally  hebetated  and  morally  corrupted,  in  spite 
of  the  degradation  and  systematic  demoralization  which  they 
had  been  exposed  to.  For  while  the  study  of  the  more  dialectic 
part  of  that  literature  preserved  their  intellectual  powers  ever 
fresh  and  active  and  developed  some  of  the  greatest  minds,  the 
reading  of  those  popular  sayings  and  impressive  moral  and  re- 
ligious maxims  with  which  the  Talmudic  writings  are  so  amply 
provided,  fostered  even  within  our  masses  that  unshaken  faith- 
fulness and  that  unparalleled  firmness  of  character  by  which 
they  resisted  all  persecutions  and  all  alluring  temptations. 

Take  all  this  into  consideration,  and  you  will  perceive  that 
none  can  expect  to  know  and  understand  Judaism  as  histori- 
cally developed,  without  knowing  the  Talmud,  without  being 
familiar  w ilh  the  spirit  of  that  vast  literature   which  proved 


1 1 0  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

such  a  powerful  agency  in  the  development  of  Judaism  and  in 
ifs  preservation. 

Let  me  also  tell  jou,  that  he  is  greatly  mistaken  who  ima 
gines  that  modern  Judaism  can  entirely  discard  and  disregard 
the  Taluiud  in  religious  questions.  Although  its  authority  is 
not  any  longer  respected  as  absolutely  binding,  albeit  under, 
the  changed  circumstances  in  wliich  we  are  living,  many  laws 
and  customs  treated  and  enjoined  in  the  Talmud  have  become 
obsolete  and  impracticable,  and  though  many  religious  views  ex- 
pressed by  the  Talmudists  are  rejected  as  incompatible  with 
modern  thoughts  and  conceptions,  it  is  a  fact,  that  Juda- 
ism nowadays  still  rests  on  the  foundation  which  is  laid  down 
in  the  Talmud.  Thus  for  instance,  the  elements  of  our  ritual 
prayers  and  the  arrangement  of  our  public  service,  our  festive 
calendar  and  the  celebration  of  some  of  our  holiest  festivals, 
the  marriage  law  and  innumerable  forms  and  customs  of  the  re- 
ligious life  are,  though  more  or  less  modified  and  fashioned  ac- 
cording to  the  demands  of  our  time,  stdl  on  the  whole  permeat- 
ed and  governed  by  the  Talmudic  principles  and  regulations. 

You  can  therefore  never  expect  to  have  a  full  and  clear 
insight  into  our  relgious  institutions  without  being  able  to  go 
to  the  source  from  which  they  emanated. 

I  could  also  speak  of  the  great  importance  of  the  Talmud 
in  so  far  as  it  contains  a  vast  fund  of  informations  which  are  of 
decided  value  to  general  history  and  literature  and  to  different 
branches  of  science,  but  I  will  remind  you  only  of  its  great  sig- 
nificance in  regard  to  two  l)ranches  of  knowledge  which  are  of 
vital  imj)()rt  to  Jewish  theology  and  the  Jewish  ministry.  I 
refer  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  and  to  Ethics. 

The  groat  value  of  the  Tabnud  for  Bible  exegesis  and  Bible 
criticism  is  generally  acknowledged  even  by  non-Jewish  scholars. 

In  regard  to  its  value  for  Ethics  I  shall  quote  here  a  pis- 
sagefroman  clattorate  and  lucid  article  on  the  Talmud  which  the 
venerable  llaljbi  Dr.  Samuel  Adler  in  New  York  published  lat(!ly 
in  one  of  the  American  Encyclopedias.     He  says: 

"With  the  consideration  of  the  ethical  significance  of  the 
Talmud  we  approach  the  highest  level,  the  crowning  portion  of 


Opinions  on  the  value  of  the  Talmud,  111 

tlie  whole  work.  Not  but  that  we  meet  with  passages  that 
must  be  rejected  by  a  pure  morality  ;  prevailing  views  and  em- 
bittering experiences  have  certainly  exercised  a  disturbing  in- 
fluence on  the  ethical  views  of  various  spiritual  heroes  of  the 
Talmud;  but  these  are  isolated  phenomena,  and  disappear,  com- 
pared with  the  moral  elevation  and  purity  of  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  the  men  of  the  Talmud,  and  compared  with  the  spirit 
that  animates  the  work  as  a  whole.  What  is  laid  down  as  the 
moral  law  in  the  Talmud  can  still  defy  scrutiny  at  the  present 
day;  and  the  very  numerous  examples  of  high  moral  views  and 
actions  on  the  part  of  the  Talmudists  are  such  as  can  not  be 
found  in  any  work  of  antiquity,  and  must  still  excite  the  admir- 
ation of  the  reader  of  the  present  day,  in  spite  of  the  ceremonial 
fetters  which  they  bore,  and  in  spite  of  the  occasional  narrow- 
ness of  their  point  of  view." 

To  impress  you  the  more  with  the  necessity  of  the  Talmudic 
studies  for  a  clear  conception  of  Judaism  and  its  history,  I  could 
also  quote  the  opinions  of  many  of  our  greatest  scholars,  but 
shall  confine  myself  only  to  a  quotation  from  the  writings  of  I  wo 
of  our  most  renowned  scholars  whom  none  will  suspect  of  hav- 
ing been  biased  by  a  too  great  predilection  for  the  Talmud;  one 
is  the  late  Dr.  Geiger,  and  the  other  our  great  historian,  the 
late  Dr.  Jost. 

Geiger  {Das  /udenthutu  und  seine  Geschichte  I.  p.  155)  in 
speaking  of  the  Talmud  and  the  rabbinical  literature,  says: 

"Gigantic  works,  productions  of  gloomy  q,nd  brighter  per- 
iods are  here  before  us,  monuments  of  thought  and  intellectual 
labor;  they  excite  onr  admiration.  I  do  not  indorse  every 
word  of  the  Talmud,  nor  every  idea  expressed  by  the  teachers 
in  the  time  of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  I  would  not  miss  a  tittle 
thereof.  They  contain  au  acumen  and  power  of  thought  which 
fill  us  with  reverence  for  the  spirit  that  animated  our  ancestors, 
a  fulness  of  sound  sense,  salutary  maxims — a  freshness  of  opinion 
often  bursts  upon  us  that  even  to  this  day  exercises  its  enlive- 
ning and  inspiring  effect." 


112  Historical  AND  Literary  IxTRoDiJcTioN. 

Jost  in  his  Geschichte  des  Judenthutnsund  seiner  Secten   II., 
202,  characterizes  the  Talmud  by  the  following  masterly  words: 

"The  Talmud  is  a  great  mine,  in  which  are  imbedded  all 
varieties  of  metals  and  ores.  Here  may  be  found  all  kinds  of 
valuables,  the  finest  gold  and  rarest  gems,  as  also  the  merest 
dross.  Much  has  been  unearthed  that  has  realized  countless 
profit  to  the  world.  The  great  spiritual  work  whose  outcome 
has  been  apparent  in  the  advancement  of  religion  has  show.n 
that  the  Talmud  is  not  only  of  incalculable  value  in  the  pursuit 
of  wisdom,  but  that  it  has  a  self-evident  significance  for  all  times, 
which  can  not  be  shown  by  any  mere  extracts  from  its  pages, 
and  that  it  can  not  be  disregarded  on  the  plea  of  its  antiquity 
as  valueless  m  the  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Indeed 
it  is  and  must  remain  the  chief  source  of  this  knowledge,  and 
particularly  of  the  historical  development  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
More  than  this,  it  is  the  abode  of  that  spirit  which  has  inspired 
that  religion,  these  many  centuries,  that  spirit  from  which  even 
those  who  sought  to  counteract  it  could  not  escape.  It  is  and 
will  remain  a  labyrinth  with  deep  shafts  and  openings,  in  which 
isolated  spirits  toil  with  tireless  activity,  a  labyrinth  which 
offers  rich  rewards  to  those  who  enter  impelled  by  the 
desire  to  gain,  not  without  hidden  dangers  to  those  who  venture 
wantonly  into  its  mazes  and  absorb  its  deadly  vapors.  Re- 
ligion has  created  this  work,  not  indeed  to  give  utterance  in  an 
unsatisfactory  way  to  the  great  questions  of  Deity  and  Nature, 
Mortality  and  Eternity,  and  not  to  carry  on  controversies  upon 
the  proper  formulatiijii  of  articles  of  faith,  but  to  give  expres- 
sion to  a  religion  of  deed,  a  religion  designed  to  accompany 
man  from  the  first  steps  in  his  education  until  he  reaches  the 
grave,  and  beyond  it;  a  guide  by  which  his  desires  and  actions 
are  to  be  regulated  at  every  moment,  by  which  all  his  move- 
ments are  to  be  guarded,  that  takes  care  even  of  his  food  and 
drink,  of  his  pleasures  and  pains,  of  his  mirth  and  sorrow,  and 
seeks  to  elevate  him,  at  all  times,  to  an  enunciation  of  the  pur- 
est faith. 

It  is  thus  that  this  spirit,  which  l)reathes  from  the  Talmud, 
enters  into  the  natioirs   inmost  lilc      It  offers  rtjjx'atcd  recitals 


Opinions  on  the  value  op  the  Talmud.  113 

of  the  various  modes  of  thinking,  practising,  believing,  of  the 
true  and  false  representations,  of  hopes  and  longings,  of  know- 
ledge and  error,  of  the  great  lessons  of  fate,  of  undertakings 
and  their  consequences,  of  utterances  and  their  effects,  of  per- 
sons and  their  talents  and  inaptitudes,  of  words  and  examples, 
of  customs,  both  in  matters  of  public  worship  and  private  life; 
in  sliort,  of  all  the  happenings,  past  or  cotemporary,  in  the 
time  which  the  Talmud  comprises,  /.  <?.,  a  period  of  nearly  one 
thousand  years,  excluding  the  Bible  times. 

Hence,  also,  its  great  value  to  antiquarians  in  the  frequent 
allusions  to  facts,  opinions  and  statements,  to  modes  of  expres- 
sion and  grammatical  construction,  to  peculiarities  of  every 
kind,  which  at  the  same  time  afford  a  view  of  the  development 
of  mankind,  such  as  no  other  work  of  the  past  gives. 

To  treat  the  Talmud  with  scorn  because  of  its  oddnes,  on 
account  of  much  that  it  contains  that  does  not  conform  to  our 
maturer  modes  of  thinking,  because  of  its  evident  errors  and 
misconceptions — errors  from  ignorance  or  errors  in  copying, — 
to  throw  it  overboard,  as  it  were,  as  useless  ballast,  would  be 
to  insult  all  history,  to  deprive  it  of  one  of  its  strongest  limbs,  to 
dismember  it. 

To  dam  up  its  channels  by  taking  away  the  Talmud,  would 
be  to  close  the  access  to  the  head  waters  and  living  sources  of 
the  Jewish  religion,  and  thus  leave  her  again  in  a  desert  land, 
after  the  tables  of  the  law  have  already  called  forth  a  world  of 
life  and  activity.  It  would  be  turning  one's  back,  as  it  were, 
denying  and  disregarding  one's  own.  There  is  a  historical  jus- 
tification for  the  sharply  defined  modes  of  worship  and  religious 
forms  that  have  their  embodiment  in  set  words  and  in  fixed 
deeds.  For  this  we  must  look  to  the  Talmud.  Judaism  is 
rooted  in  the  Talmud  and  would  be  tossed  about  in  mid-air  if 
torn  from  its  soil, or  require  a  new  planting  and  a  new  growth." 

In  conclusion,  my  young  friends,  let  me  say  this: 

If  our  College  had  no  other  purpose  than  to  graduate  com- 
mon Sabbath  school  teachers  who  should  be  able  to  occasional- 
ly deliver  popular  though  superficial  lectures,  the   study  of  the 


114  Historical  and  Literary  Introduction. 

Talmud  as  well  as  that  of  our  rabbinical  and  philosophical  litera- 
ture, might  have  been  stricken  from  the  course  of  your  studies. 
But  our  Colleg3  has  a  higher  aim  and  object.  Its  object  is  to 
educate  future  guides  and  leaders  of  our  congregations,  to  edu- 
cate banner-bearers  of  Judaism,  representatives  and  cultivators 
of  Jewish  knowledge  and  literature. 

You  can  never  expect  to   answer  this  purpose  without  a 
thorough  knowledg  ^  of,  and  familiarity  with,  that  vast  literature 
that  offers  us  the  means  to  follow  and  understand  the  religious 
formation,    the  growth  and  the  entire  course  of  development  of 
Judaism  from  its  beginning  to  the  present  time." 


PART    II. 


LEGAL    HERMENEUTICS    OF    THE    TALMUD 


LEGAL  HERMENEUTICS  OF  THE  TALMUD, 

INTRODUCTION. 

a.     Definition. 

§  1- 

EIorin'3iieiitics  is  the  science  of  interpretation  or  of  explai- 
ing-  the  meaning  of  an  author's  words,  according  to  certain 
rules.  The  term  is  especially  applied  to  the  exegesis  or  inter- 
pretation of  the  sacred  Scripture. 

Although  hermeneutics  and  exegesis  are  synonyms, as  botli 
words  from  which  they  are  derived  ipfirjvtvEiv  and  ec,r]yEi6^ai 
mean  to  explain^  interpret,  still  literary  usage  makes  that  differ- 
ence between  them,  that  the  term  hermeneutics  refers  to  that 
branch  of  science  which  estal)lishes  the  principles  and  rules  of 
interpretation,  while  exegesis  is  the  actual  application  of  those 
principles  and  rules. 

By  Legal  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud  we  understand 
an  exposition  of  those  principles  and  rules  which  the  teachers 
of  the  Talmud  established  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Biblic- 
al Law. 

b.     Methods  of  Ixterpretation. 

§  2.  * 

The  Talmud  distinguishes  between  two  methods  of  Script- 
ural interpretation,  one  which  is  termed  Feshat,  and  the 
other  Deras/i. 

Peshat  (tatys)  is  the  plain  interpretation,  where  a  law  or  a 
passage  in  Scripture  is  explained  in  the  most  natural  way  ac- 
cording to  the  letter,  the  grammatical  construction,  and 
t  he  spirit  of  the  passage.  Hence  the  talmudic  phrase:  ^''t2t^'D 
SIpT  the  plain  meaning,  the  immediate  and  primary  sense  of  a 
Scriptural  passage  (Chullin  Ga). 


118  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

Dems/i  (lioni  B^m  to  search,  investigate)  is  that  method 
by  which  it  is  intendeil,  lor  certain  reasons,  to  interpret  a 
passage  in  a  more  artificial  way  which  often  deviates  from  the 
plain  aud  natural  meaning.  'V\\k  result  of  this  method  of  inter- 
pretation is  termed  ^mD  that  which  is  searched  out,  the  artifi- 
cial deduction,  as  '3  ii'i"  wT^ll  "T  this  artificial  interpretation 
was  made  by  that  certain  teacher,    Mishna  Shekalini  YI,  6. 

As  an  illustration  of  these  two  methods  of  interprttation 
Ave  refer  to  the  following  passage  in  Deut.  XXIV,  16.  'nttV  \^h 

"The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children, 
neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers."  The 
plain  and  natural  meaning  of  this  passage  is  that  the  family  of  a 
criminal  shall  not  be  involved  in  his  punishment.  But  the  arti- 
ficial interpretation  of  the  Rabbis  which  is  also  adopted  in  the 
Targum  Onkelos  takes  the  word  ^y  in  the  sense  of  nny3 
through  the  testimony^  and  explains  this  passage  to  the  efi'ect 
that  the  testimony  of  relatives  must  never  be  accepted  in  a  crim- 
inal or  civil  case.     Tahn.  Sanhedrin  fol.  'iVb. 

C.       Two  KINDS  OF  MlDRASH. 

There  are  two  kinds   of  Mi(h'ash.     Where  the  interpret;! 
tion  bears  on  the  enactment  or  determination    of  a  law,  be  it, 
a  ritual,  ceremonial,  civil,    or  criminal  law,    it  is  called  B-mfi 
T\2hr\  Interpretation  of  Hahuha^  or  legal  interpret ation. 

But  where  the  Midrash  does  not  concern  legal  enactments 
and  provisions,  but  merely  inquires  into  the  meaning  and  signi- 
ficance of  tlie  laws  or  where  it  only  uses  the  words  of  Scriptui'c 
as  a  vehicle  to  convey  a  moral  t(!aching  or  a  religious  instruc- 
tion and  consolation,  it  is  called  rn:!S  ti'~nt3  Interpretation  of 
the  Agada,  iiomiletical  intoi-pret ation. 

The  following  exami)]eswill  illustrate  both  kinds  ofMidrasli. 

1)  In  Lev.  XIX,  3  the  law  reads:  l«n''n  T'^ST  IDS  ti'^S 
"Ye  shall  fear  every  man  his  mother,  and  his  father".  In  the 
interpretation  of  this  passage    the  Rabbis  explain  that  the  ex-. 


Introduction.  119 

pression  '^•\s  every  man  must  here  not  be  taken  in  its  literal 
sense,  as  if  referring  to  the  man  (the  son)  only,  and  not  also  to 
woman  (the  daughter),  for  the  plural  form  "ye  shall  fear"  in- 
cludes the  daughter  as  well  as  the  son  in  this  divine  injunction 
of  filial  respect  and  obedience: 

?  j^:d  ntr^s  ty-'K  k^s  ^b  ps  ti"'« 

Talm.  Kiddushin  30b. 

This  is  Midrash  Halacha,  as  it  concerns  the  determination 
of  the  law. 

Commenting  on  the  same  passage,  the  Rabbis  further  ex- 
plain'why  in  this  passage  the  first  place  is  given  to  the  mother, 
while  in  the  decalogue  where  filial  love  to  parents  is  command- 
ed, the  father  is  mentioned  first.  The  reason  offered  is, 
that  as  a  rule  children  fear  the  father,  but  love  the  mother  more 
particularly.  (Ibid.  fol.  31a.)  This  explanation  belongs  rather 
to  the  Agada. 

2)  In  Exodus  XX,  25  the  law  reads  :  ''And  if  thou  wilt 
make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  (jnnx)  ol 
hewn  stone :  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  iron  tool  upon  it,  thou  hast 
polluted  it." 

The  Midrash  Halacha  of  this  passage  emphasizes  the  ob- 
jective pronoun  inns  and  concludes  that  the  prohibition  of 
hewn  stones  is  restricted  to  the  altar  only,  but.  in  building  the 
temple  such  stones  may  be  used: 

^D\-i3  n"'T:  n:i2  nn«  ^as  n^r:  niia  nnx  ^x  u 

Mechilta,  Yithro  XI. 

The  Midrash  Agada  to  this  passage  explains  ingeniously 
the  reason  why  the  application  of  iron  is  here  called  a  pollution 
ot  the  altar;  it  is  because  iron  abridges  life,  the  altar  prolongs 
it;  iron  causes  destruction  and  misery,  the  altar  produces  re- 
conciliation between  God  and  man ;  and  therefore  the  use  of 
iron  cannot  be  allowed  in  making  the  altar.  (Mechilta  ibid.  ; 
compare  also  Mishna  Middoth  III,  4.) 


120  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

The  hermeueutic  rules  for  Midrash  Agada  resemble  in 
many  respects  those  of  Midrash  Halacha,  in  others  they  differ. 
We  propose  to  treat  here  especially  of  the  Hermeneutics  of 
the  Halacha. 

ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MIDRASH  HALACHA. 

a.     Circumstances  that  necessitated  ARTiFiciiX 
interpretation. 

§4. 

Ever  since  the  time  of  Ezra,  the  Scribe,  and  especially 
since  the  religious  and  political  revival  under  the  Maccabees, 
the  law  embodied  in  the  Pentateuch  was  generally  looked  upon 
as  the  rule  of  Israel's  life.  But  side  by  side  with  this  written 
lata,  arilJ^tl'*  niin,  went  an  unwritten,  oral  law  nS  ^JJItt*  ""lin. 

This  consisted  partly  of  a  vast  store  of  religious  and  na- 
tional customs  and  usages  which  had  been  established  in  the 
course  of  several  centuries  and  handed  down  orally  from  gen- 
eration to  generation;  partly  of  decrees  and  ordinances  enacted 
according  to  exigencies  of  the  changed  times  and  cir- 
cumstances l)y  the  Sopheritn  and  the  succeeding  authorities, 
the  Sanhedrin. 

As  long  as  the  validity  of  this  oral  law  had  not  been 
questioned,  there  was  no  need  of  founding  it  on  a  Scriptural 
basis!.  It  stood  on  its  own  footing,  and  was  shielded  by  the 
authority  of  tradition.  From  tlie  time  hovever  when  tl^e 
Sadducean  ideas  began  to  spread,  which  tended  to  undermine 
the  authority  of  tlie  traditional  law  and  reject  everything  not 
founded  on  the  Scriptures,  the  effort  was  made  liy  the  teachers 
to  place  the  traditions  under  the  shield  of  the  word  of  the 
Thora.  To  accomplish  this  task,  the  plain  and  natural  inter- 
])retation  (li<I  not  always  suffice.  More  artificial  methods  had 
to  be  devised  by  which  the  splierc  of  the  written  law  could  be 
extended  so  as  to  offci'  a  basis  and  sup))ort  for  every  traditional 
law  and  observance,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  enrich  the  sub- 
stauce  of  this  law   with  new  pfovisious  for  cases  not  yet  provi- 


Introduction.  121 

ded  for.  This  artificial  interpretation  which  originated  in  the 
urgent  desire  to  ingraft  the  traditions  on  the  stem  of  Scripture 
or  harmonize  the  oral  with  the  written  law,  could,  of  course,  in 
many  instances  not  be  etfected  without  strained  constructions 
and  the  exercise  of  some  violence  on  the  biblical  text, '  as  is  illus- 
trated  in  the  following  example. 

It  was  a  rule  of  law  established  by  tradition,  firstly,  that 
judicial  decisions  are  rendered  by  a  majority  of  votes;  secondly 
that  in  capital  cases,  the  majority  of  one  vote  was  sufficient  for 
the  acquittal,  but  for  the  condemnation  a  majority  of  at  least 
two  votes  was  required;  thirdly  that  in  taking  the  votes  in  a 
criminal  case,  it  must  be  commenced  from  the  youngest  judge, 
in  order  that  his  opinion  and  vote  shall  not  be  influenced  by 
that  of  his  older  colleagues. 

When  the  question  came  up  to  find  a  biblical  basis  for 
these  rules,  reference  was  made  to  the  following  passage  in  Ex. 
XXIII,  2  which  reads: 

myn^  a^^-i  nns  n^nn  s^ 

"Thou  shalt  not  follow  the  many  to  evil,  neither  shalt  thou 
speak  in  a  case  to  deviate  after  the  many  to  pervert  justice". 

In  its  simple  sense  this  })ai^sago  is  a  warning  for  the  judge 
as  well  as  for  the  witness  not  to  be  influenced  by   the  unjust 


*  This  effort  to  base  traditional  institutions  and  usages  on  the 
written  law  is  not  without  a  certain  parallel-though  under  quite  differ- 
ent circumstances  and  influences— in  the  history  of  jurisprudence 
among  other  nations,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  following  interesting 
notice  in  Lieber's  'Legal  and  Political  Hermeneutics,"  page  239.  Speak- 
ing of  the  law  which  grew  up  in  the  course  of  centui'ies  by  the  combina- 
tion of  the  lex  scripta,  or  Roman  law,  with  the  customs  of  the  various 
nations  that  received  it,  he  says:  "A  favorite  field  for  the  exercise  of 
professional  ingenuity  was  the  interpretation  of  the  Roman  law  in  such 
manner  as  to  find  therein  formal  written  authority  for  the  institutions, 
rules  and  usages  that  the  (Termanic  races  had  inherited  from  their 
ancestors.  For  a  century  ]iast  it  has  been  one  of  the  chief  tasks  of  the 
continental  jurists,  and  especially  of  the  class  among  them  known  as 
Germanists,  to  restore  these  remains  of  national  law  to  their  original 
shape,  free  from  the  distortions  and  disguises  forced  upon  them  by 
this  Romanizing  process." 


122  Hermexeutics  of  the  Talmud. 

opinion  (  1  the  multitude  in  a  law  suit,  but  to  follow  his  own 
conviction  in  giving  his  vote  or  his  testimony.  But  the  arti- 
ficial interpretation  forced  upon  this  passage  a  different  mean- 
ing. By  separating  the  last  three  words  misn^  D^3"l  ^ins  from 
the  context  and  forming  them  as  a  separate  sentence :the  Rabbis 
found  therein  an  express  biblical  precept  ''to  lean  to  the  major- 
ity'', that  is,  to  decide  doubtful  cases  by  a  majority  of  votes. 
The  tirst  part  of  the  passage  "thou  shalt  not  follow  the  many 
to  evil"  was  interpreted  to  mean  "do  not  follow  the  simple  maj- 
ority (of  one)  for  condemnation^  as  for  the  acquittal,  but  it  re" 
quires  at  least  a  majority  of  two  votes  to  condemn  the  accused 
(Mishna  Sanhedrin  I.  6)  • 

The  word  a**^  in  the  middle  part  of  the  passage,  being 
here  exceptionally  writLcu  in  the  text  without  a  mater  lectionis 
21/  so  as  to  admit  the  word  to  be  read  Rabh  (the  superior),  one 
of  the  Babylonian  teachers  made  use  of  this  circumstance  to  in- 
terpret 31  ^y  riiyn  vh  "thou  Shalt  not  express  thy  opinion  af- 
ter the  superior",  hence  the  younger  members  of  a  criminal 
court  have  to  vote  first  (Talm.   Sanhedrin  .36a). 

Conclusions  dei-ived  by  authoritative  interpretations  from 
the  Mosaic  Law  were,  in  general,  endowed  with  the  same  au- 
thority and  sanctity  as  the  clear  utterances  of  that  Law,  and 
termed  nnnn  iI2  or,  in  the  Aramaic  form,  sn^'^llXTD  (derived 
from  the  Biblical  hnv). 

In  many  instances,  however,  the  Talmudic  teachers  freely 
admit  that  the  meaning  which  they  put  upon  the  text  was  not 
the  plain  and  natiiial  interpretation;  that  "the  natural  sense 
of  a  passage  must  never  be  lost  sight  of"",  and  that  theirstrain- 


'  Maimonides  ('3  gnil^  ni1V?Dn  'D)  holds  that  laws  derived  from 
the  Mosaic  law  by  means  of  the  liennencutic  rules  are,  in  general,  not 
to  be  regarded  as  biblical  laws  (minn  }D)  except  when  expressly  char- 
acterized as  Rucli  in  the  Talmud.  But  this  somewhat  rational  view 
is  strongly  criticiy^d  by  Nachmanides  (in  his  annotaiions  to  that  book) 
who  sliowH  thut  from  the  Taluiudical  standpoint  every  law  which 
the  Rabbis  derived  by  the  authoritative  inierpn  tation  from  8:icred 
Scripture,  has  the  character  and  sanctity  of  a  Mosaic  Law. 

'  ICItt'D  'TO  KVV  K1p>:n  px    Sabbat])  63a;  Yebamoth  lib;  24a. 


Introduction.  123 

o(i  interpretation  nin?t  be  roGcardeil  merely  a«  an  attempt  ''to 
provide  an  established  cnstom  and  law  with  a  Biblical  sup- 
port".' 

Remark.  There  are  some  legal  traditions  of  an  ancient  date  most- 
ly concerning  the  ritual  law,  for  which  the  Rabbis  were  unable  to  find 
a  biblical  support  or  even  a  mere  hint.  They  are  termed  nB^ob  nabn 
'J'DfO  "traditional  laws  handed  down  from  Moses  on  Sinai".  That  this 
phrase  is  not  to  be  taken  literally,but  often  as  merely  intended  to  desig- 
nate a  very  old  tradition  the  origin  of  which  cannot  be  traced,  is  evid- 
ent from  Mishna  Eduyoth  VIII,  7.  Maimonides  in  the  introduction  to 
his  Mishna  Commentary  enumerates  the  traditions  mentioned  in  the 
Talmud  by  that  appellation  to  the  number  of  twenty  three.  This  enu- 
meration, however  has  been  found  not  to  be  quite  correct,  as  the  tradi- 
tions designated  by  that  name  actually  amount  to  the  number  of  fifty 
five.     Compare  Herzfeld,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  II,  237-233. 

b.     The  earliest  collection  of  Hermeneutic  Rules. 

§'^. 

Hillel  the  Elder,  who  flourished  abount  a  century  before 
the  destruction  of  the  second  temple,  is  mentioned  as  having 
been  the  first  to  lay  down  certain  hermeneutic  rules  (miD), 
seven  in  number,  for  the  purpose  of  expounding  the  written 
law  and  extending  its  provisions.  Some  of  these  rules  were 
probably  already  known  before  Hillel,  though  not  generally 
applied;  but  it  was  his  merit  to  have  fixed  them  as  standard 
rules  of  legal  interpretation.  The  headings  of  his  seven  rules 
are  : 

1.  1i2im  ho,  the  inference  from  minor  and  major, 

2.  nits''  H'T'Tl  the  analogy  of  expressions. 

3.  nnj<  3iri30  2K  ^33/  the  generalization  of  one  special 
provision. 

4.  D'»i"iri3 ''Jli'D  3S  pJ^/ the  generalization  of  two  special 
provisions. 

'  '•Nips  pai  inrDr^DXI  "inj^J  an'^hn  Erubin  4b;  SuccahSSa;  Kidd. 
9a.  Coni}t;ire  also  the  phrase:  N?:)^i,*3  NTlSt^DN  N"ip  Ferachoth  41b; 
Yoiua  80b;  B.  Metzia  88h   and  elsewhere  very  often  used. 


124  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

5.  la^Sl  bb^i  the  effect  of  general  and  particular  terms. 

6.  nnx  mpDD  ^Z  N:»T'3,ttie  analogy  made  from  an  another 
passage. 

'^'  li^ipD  It^bn  "121,  the  explanation  derived  from  the 
context. 

These  seven  rules  of  Hillel  having  later  been  embodied  in 
the  system  of  R.  Tshmael,  their  fuller  contents  and  application 
will  be  explained  in  the  exposition  of  the  single  rules  of  that  sys- 
tem.' 

C.       A  NEW  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETATION  INTRODUCED 
BY  NaHUM. 

§6. 

Besides  the  seven  rules  of  llillcl  which  were  generally 
adopted,  some  other  peculiar  methods  of  interpreting  the  Scrip? 
ture  were  introduced  by  succeeding  teachers  for  the  sake  of 
making  new  deductions  from  the  written  law.  Thus  Nahum  of 
Gimzo^  a  contemporary  of  R.  Johanan  ben  Zaccai,  originated  a 
method  which  is  termed  taiy'^OI  ''131  the  extension  and  limitation. 
According  to  this  method  certain  particles  and  conjunctions 
employed  in  the  Mosaic  law  were  intended  to  indicate  the  ex- 
tension or  limitation  of  its  provisions,  so  as  to  include  the  ad- 
ditions of  tradition,  or  exclude  what  tradition  excludes.  As 
extensions  were  regarded  especially  the  Avords:  fiN  ,nK  /DJ  and 
b'2,  and  as  limitations  tlie  words:  "]{</  iD  and  pi. 

This  method  is  illustrated  by  the  following  examples: 

1)  The  word  jiK  wliich  marks  the  direct  objective  case 
agrees  in  form  with  the  preposition  nx  with.  Hence  this  word 
in  the  passage  Dent.  X,  '20:  j^iTl  "[Tl'^S  v's  riW  is  interpreted 
CDnn  "'Ta^n  min^  "it  is  to  include  the  A'isc  men",  who  are 
to  be  revered  along  with  (iod  (l'(\sachim  22b.). 

2)  The  principle  t.hat  "a('ts  done  through  our  agent  are 
as  if  done  by  ourselves",  is  derived  from  the  passage  Numberg 
XVIII,    28:    ons*  d:  lO'^nn  p     "Thus  ye    also   shall  otier   an 


'  These  seven  rules  of  Hillel  are  quoted  in  Tosephta  Sanhedrin  ch. 
VII;  Aboth  of  R.  Nathan  ch.  XXXVII  and  in  the  introductory  chapter 
of  tlie  Siphra. 


Introduction  125 

heave  offering",  by  interpreting :  n'^b^n  n«  m^n^  d:i  ''this 
a/so  is  to  include  your  ageu/;  he  may  offer  your  heave  offering  in 
your  place".  Xiddushin  41b. 

3)  That  the  rigorous  precepts  of  the  Sabbath  do  not 
apply  to  cases  where  life  is  in  danger  (t^EJ  mp''£),  is  derived 
from  the  limiting  word  "[«  in  the  passage  Exod.  XXXI,  13: 
1"nci:'n  •'mriDiy  ns  "jS* :  "merely  my  Sabbaths  you  shall  keep" 
by  interpreting  p^n'?  "]K,  this  ^hnerely"  excludes  such  cases. 
Yoma  85b. 

d.     Development  of  this  method  by  R.  Akiba.- 

§  •?. 

This  new  method  of  R.  Nahum  of  Gimzo  was  not  general 
ly  approved  by  his  contemporaries.  One  of  its  opponents  was 
R.  Nehunia  ben  Hakana  who  insisted  upon  retaining  only  the 
rules  of  Hillel,'  But  in  the  following  generation,  the  celebrat- 
ed R.  Akiba  resumed  the  method  of  his  former  teacher  Nahum 
of  Gimzo,  and  developed  it  into  a  system.  The  underlying 
principle  of  that  system  was  that  the  language  of  the  Thora 
differs  from  human  language.  The  latter  often  uses  more 
words,  to  express  ideas,  than  necessary;  superflous  words  being 
inserted  either  for  the  sake  of  grammatical  form  or  for  the  sake 
of  rhetorical  flourish  and  emphasis.  Not  so  the  language  in 
which  the  divine  law  was  framed.  Here  not  a  word,  not  a 
syllable  and  not  even  a  letter  is  superfluous,  but  all  is  essential 
and  of  vital  importance  to  define  the  intention  of  a  law  and  to 
hint  at  deductions  to  be  made  therefrom.  According  to  this 
principle  the  indication  of  an  extension  and  limitation  of  the 
law  is  not  confined  to  those  few  particles  pointed  out  by 
Nahum  of  Gimzo,  but  every  word  or  part  thereof  which  is  not 
absolutely  indispensable  to  express  the  sense  of  the  law  is  de- 
signed to  enlarge  or  restrict  the  sphere  of  its  provisions. 

Thus  R.  Akiba  and  the  followers  of  his  system  found  indi- 
cations for  the  intended  extension  of  a  law  in  the  repetition  of 


'  «ee  Talm.  Sliebuoth  26a. 


126  Hermeneutics  op  the  Talmud, 

a  word>;  in  the  absolute  iiitiiiitive  joined  with  the  finite  forms 
of  a  vero;'"  in  the  conjunction  i^? '  and  in  the  eunjanctive  i  .  In- 
dications tor  an  entended  limitation  of  the  law  are  found  by 
laying  stress  either  on  a  demonstrative  pronoun,^  or  on  the 
definite  article  n ',  or  on  the  pergonal  pronoun  added  to  a 
verb',  or  on  a  pronominal  suffix"  or  on  any  noun "  or  verb'" 
occurring  in  that  law. 

The  new  hermeneutic  rules  which  R.  Akiba  thus  added  to 
those  of  Hillel  and  Nahum  offered  entirely  new  ways  and  means 
to  find  a  Scriptural  basis  for  the  oral  laws,  and  to  enrich  its 
Rubstance  with  many  valuable  deductions. 

e.     K.  IsHMAEi/s  Rules. 

§8. 

The  ingenious  system  of  R.  Akiba, tliough  received  with  ad- 
miration by  many  of  his  contemporaries,  had  also  its  opponents. 
One  of  the  most  prominent  among  these  was  R.  Ishmael  1). 
Elisha.  He  claimed  :  mS  "^12  'i^iub^  ""lin  n"i3T  "The  divine 
Law  speaks  in  the  ordinary  language  of  .Men".  Therefore,  no 
special  weight  ought  to  be  attached  to  its  tu.'ns  of  speech  and 
repetitions  so  customary  in  human  langmcre.  He  consequent!}^ 
rejected  most  of  the  deductions  which  II.  Akiba  based  on  a 
seemingly  pleonastic   word,    superfluous  syllable  or  letter,   and 

1  f.  i,  Pesacliim  36a:  nan  mVD  niV?D  ;  Yebamoth  70a:  tJ«K  K''K 
^"lyn  ni2~l^  compare  also  Shebuoth  4b:  D^yjl  D^y:,  • 

'■'  Sanhediiu  64b  rn3n  n"l3n  ;  B.    Metzia  'M  a.  b.    DTETl  SBTl,    ubi^ 

n^BTi,  anyn  ary  etc. 

'  Sanliedrin  34b:  nmb  n^T  IS;  B.  Kamma  r)3b:  D'^3n  n«   ni31^  IN 
*  Sanh'Hirin    r)lb:  nUI^  Dai  113;    Vt^baniotb  fiHb  :    pil  C^mn  y""l; 
compare  also    Ketbuboth  103a  :    ^"njn  "I'^HN    DK   nmS  nm'VV 

''   Horioth    <ta:    nnHN   l*N1  ^T    ]2'^p  HT ;    ChuUu     \2n:   n'H  /H^nn    DNT 

nb  nnns. 

«  Pesacbiin  5a:    fwyo!?)  D^C  "h  HdS  l^e'K^^  ,ne'K-|  Sip  3^3:. 

'   Maccoth  2b:   pDDW  N^l  K^iT  ,0\y  XIH  :  fompart^  also  Horioth  19b: 

wni  h"n- 

'  Kiddushin  17b:  ]2r]  DS  »b^  oh'iVb  H^yi:  Sanbcdriu  t(!a  iniN  n^bm 
"  Kiddushin  18a:  1TD33  N?l  ina''JJ3;Sanli<'(lrin  ri2a:  ]\2pb  t3"lD  VH- 

'•  (Jiuiii  20a:  ppn  N^i  3nDi ;  Kiddubiiiii  t>4a  :  ntny  D''^^n  ,:)Sn''  ttb'\ 


Introduction.  12  V 

admitted  only  such  deductions  which  could  be  justified  ))j  the 
spirit  of  the  passage  of  law  under  consideration.  As  standard 
rules  for  interpretation  he  recognized  only  those  laid  down  by 
Hillel  which  he  however  enlarged  to  thirteen  by  subdividing 
some  of  them,  omitting  one,  and  adding  a  new  one  of  his  own. 
The  thirteen  rules  of  R.  Ishmael  are: 

1.  IDim  hp         identical  with  Hillel's  Rule  I. 

2.  nW  nl'^Ti       identical  with  Hillel's  Rule  II. 

3.  3«  ("'in  contraction  of  Hillel's  Rules  III  and  IV. 

4  tsnsi  ^^3     [ 

5  ^^il  IDIS    -j    subdivision  of  Hillel's  Rule  V. 

6  ^b"!  tansi  ^'?3    I 

1.  8.  9.  10  and  11  are  modifications  of  Hillel's  Rule  V. 

12  1S1DD  ID^n  nmi  irjyD  lobn  n21  with  some  addition 
identical  with  Hillel's  Rule  YII. 

13  nr  ns  ni  D^'^%-I3Dn  D''3inr  •'Jty,  this  rule  is  not  at  all 
found  among  Hillel's. 

Among  those  rules  of  R.  Ishmael,  the  sixth  rule  of  Hillel 
"the  analogy  made  from  another  passage"  is  omitted,  but  this 
omission  is  seeming  only,  since  that  rule  was,  under  differnt 
names:  a^pTi  (the  analogy)  and  li'^^o  HD  (as  we  find-analogy) 
included  partly  in  the  rule  of  niti^  nVTl  partly  in  thatof  3«  j-^j^, 
as  will  be  seen  further  on  in  the  fuller  exposition  of  these  two 
rules. 

R.  Ishraael's  thirteen  rules  were  generally  adopted  as  the 
authoritative  rules  of  rabbinical  interpretation  without  however 
supplanting  the  methods  of  R.  Akiba  which  continued  to  be 
favored  by  many  sf  the  Rabbis  and  were  applied  even  by  some 
of  the  immediate  disciples  of  R.  Ishmael. ' 

Remark.  R.  Eliezer,  son  of  R.  Jose  the  Gralilean,  again  enl-irg^il 
the  hermeneutic  rules  to  the  number  of  thirty  two.  But  as  his  rules 
mostly  refer  to  the  homiletical  interpretation,  they  do  not  strictly  be- 
long to  our  subject.  Tiie  Talmud  though  incidentiiUy  praising  the  emi- 
nence of  this  teacher  (Chulin  89),  nowhere  mentions  his  rules.     But  in 


'  Compare  B.  Kamma  84a:  ■'K'lT  Kl'n^  X"lp  ^VDB''  "1  'ST  ;  also  Kid- 
dushln  43:  nui!?  IK  NJn  ^XyDB''  h  Ul. 


128  Hermeneutics  of  the  Tai.mud, 

the  Agadic  interpretation  of  the  Amoraiin,some  of  his  rules  are  applied. 
A  Baraitha  of  R.  Eliezer  containing  his  thirty  two  rules  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Rabbinical  wi-itings  before  the  tenth  century.  This  Ba- 
raitha is  embodied  in  the  books:  Sefer  Kerithoth  and  Halicholh  Olam 
of  which  w-e  shall  speak  in  the  following  paragraph. 

Literature  on  the  Hermeneutic  Rules. 
§9. 

The  thirteen  rules  of  R.  Ishmael  are  collected  in  the  intro- 
ductory chapter  of  the  Siphra. 

jR.  Abraham  b.  David  of  Fosq uteres  (T^Sl)/  in  the  XII  cen- 
tury, wrote  some  valuable  annotations  on  that  chapter  in  his 
commentary  on  the  Siphra. 

R.  Solomon  b.  Isaac  (''"tt'l),  the  celebrated  commentator  of 
the  Talmud,  in  the  XI  century,  occasionally  explained,  in  his 
lucid  way,  the  single  rules  where  they  are  applied  in  the  Talmu- 
dical  discussions.' 

Of  standard  works  treating  of  the  hermeneutic  rules  we 
mention: 

mn''"l]3  'D  by  R.  Samson  of  Chinon,  in  the  XIV  century. 

D^iy  m3'''?n  'D  by  R.  Jeshua  b.  Joseph  Halevi,  flourishing 
in  the  XV  century,  in  Spain. 

An  abstract  of  the  two  last  mentioned  works  is  found  in 
an  appendix  to  rn3^3  DDDD  in  the  usual  Talmud  editions. 

j"ir;S  miD  'D  by  Aaron  b.  Chayim,  XVI  century.  This  very 
valuable  treatise  Ibriiis  the  iirst  pai-t  of  tlie  author's  greater 
work  called  l^'^'r\'i<  |3"ip  wliich  is  a  commentary  on  the  Sij)hi-a. 

nyitSw'  j''^''  'D  by  R.  Solomon  b.  Abraham  Algazi,  XVll  cen- 
tury. 


1  A  separate  treatise  on  the  hermeneutic  rules,  ascribed  to  this 
commentator  and  published  in  Kobak's  "Giiiz*^  Nistarotli"  1  11  under 
the  title  of  rrnon  by  ^tJn  KMI^Q  seems  to  be  spurious.  It  is,  at  most,  a 
comi)il;ition  of  his  various  incidental  remarks  on  the  single  rules  found 
in  his  commentar}'  on  the  Talmud. 


Introduction.  129 

n»3n  n^nn  'D,  by  Jacob  Chagiz  XVII,  century. 
Of  modern   works  on  our  subject   the  following  deserve  to 
be  mentioned: 

Halachische  Exegese  by  H.  S.  Hirschfeld,  Berlin,  1840. 
nT'a'^n  hy  Mordec/ml  Flo?igia/i,   Wilna,  1849.     This  Heb- 
rew book  treats  exclusively  of  the  rule  of  Gezera  Shava. 

Palaestinische  und  alexandriuische  SchriftforscLang  by  Z. 
Fnt/ikel,  Breslau,  1854. 


EXPOSITION  OF  R.  ISHMAEL'S  HERMENEUTIC  RULES. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  INFERENCE  OF  KAL  VE-CHOMER. 

The  rule  which  occupies  the  first  place  in  the  hermeneutic 
system  of  Hillel  as  well  as  in  that  of  R.  Ishmael,  is  termed 
"iDim  bO-  This  rule  is  very  frequently  used  in  the  Talmudic 
discussions.  It  has  quite  a  logical  foundation,  being  a  kind 
of  syllogism,  an  inference  a  fortiori. 

I.  Definitton. 

%  10. 

In  the  Talmudic  therminology  tlie  word  ^p  (light  in  weight) 
means  that  which,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  is  regarded  as 
being  less  important,  less  significant,  and  iDin  (heaviness)  that 
which  is  comparatively  of  great  weight  and  importance.  By 
the  term-iDim  ^p  then  is  meant  an  inference  from  the  less  to  the 
more  important,  and  vice  versa^  from  the  more  to  the  less  im- 
portant. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience,  we  shall  use  the  word  minor 
instead  of  ^p,  and  major  instead  of  "iDin  ;  but  we  must  caution 
against  confounding  the  meaning  of  these  words  with  that  of 
the  terms  major  and  minor,  commonly  used  in  logic  in  regard 
to  syllogisms. 

II.  Principle. 

§  11. 

The  principle  underlying  the  inference  of  "^Dim  hp  is,  that 
the  law  is  assumed  to  have  the  tendency  to  proportionate  its 
effect  to  the  importance  of  the  cases  referred  to,  so  as  to  be  more 
rigorous  and  restrictive  in  important,  and  more  lenient  and 
permissive  in  comparatively  unimportant  matters.  Hence,  if  a 
certain  rigorous  restriction  of  the  law  is  found  regarding  a  mat- 
ter of  minor  importance,  we  may  infer  that  the  same  restriction 
is  the  more  applicable  to  that  which  is  of  major  importance, 


The  Inference  prom  Minor  and  Major.  131 

though  that  restriction  be  not  expressly  made  in  the  law  for  this 
case.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  a  certain  allowance  is 
made  by  the  law  regarding  a  thing  of  major  importance,  we  may 
properly  conclude  that  the  same  allowance  is  the  more  applicable 
to  that  which  is  of  comparatively  minor  importancei. 

Thus,  for  instance,  r\2^  is  in  some  respects  regarded  as 
being  oi  more  importance  (llDn)  than  •iD"'|'»  (a  common  holiday). 
If,  therefore,  a  certain  kind  of  work  is  permitted  on  nztT,  we 
justly  infer  that  such  a  work  is  the  more  permissible  on  ta"T» ; 
and  vice  versa^  if  a  certain  work  is  forbidden  on  ia"'it  it  must  all 
the  more  imperatively  be  forbidden  on  nati'.  Mishna  Betza  V.  2: 

in.  BiBiJCAL  Prototype. 

§  12. 

The  inference,  drawn  in  Scripture  (Numl)ers  xii.  14)  on  a 
certain  occasion  is  regarded  as  a  prototype  of  this  manner  of 
of  drawing  inferences  which  is  employed  in  the  Talmudic  Halacha. 
Miriam  had  been  punished  with  leprosy  as  a  sign  of  the  Lord's 
disfavor,  and  when  the  question  arose  how  long  she  ought  to  be 
shut  out  of  the  camp  in  consequence  of  that  disfavor,  the 
answer  was ;  "If  her  father  had  but  spit  in  her  face,  should  she 
not  be  ashamed  (shut  up)  seven  days?  Let  her  be  shut  out 
from  the  camp  seven  days."  Here  an  inference  is  made 
from  minor  to  major,  namely,  from  a  human  father's  to  the 
Lord's  disfavor. 

IV.  Talmudic  Terms. 

§  13. 

Every  "iDim  ^p  contains  two  things,  A  and  B,  standing 
in  certain  relations  to  each  other  and  having  ditferent   degrees 


'Modern  jurisprudence  admits  also  a  certain  argument  which  is 
quite  analogous  to  the  principle  of  Kal  ve-chomer,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  following  maxim,  quoted  by  Coke  on  Littleton,  260: 
"Quod  in  minori  valet,  valebit  in  majori  ;  et  quod  in  majori  noii 
valet  nee  valebit  in  minori."  "What  avails  in  the  less,  will  avail  in 
the  greater ;  and  what  will  not  avail  in  the  greater,  will  not  avail 
in  the  less." 


132  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

of  importance.  Of  these  two  things,  A,  which  in  Talmudic 
terminology  is  called  iia^D  (teaching)  is  expressly  subject  to  a 
certain  law  or  restriction,  which  by  way  of  inference  is  to  be 
transferred  to  B,  termed  lO^  (learning). 

An  inference  is  termed  pi  (a  judgment);  to  make  an  infer- 
ence |n  (to  judge).  The  peculiar  law  found  in  the  ID^Q  is 
called  jnj  (to  be  judged  from),  while  the  law  finally  transferred 
to  the  iD^  is  termed  ]nn  p  i<3n  (the  result  of  the  inference). 

Thus,  in  the  biblical  inference  mentioned  above,  th(^  father's 
disfavor  is  the  id'^D,  the  Lord's  disfavor  is  ID^.  The  punish- 
ment in  cousequeace  of  a  father's  disfavor  (nyiti''  D'?3n  8^n 
D"'D^)  is  the  |1"TJ,  and  the  final  decision  derived  from  this  infer- 
ence (D''D^  ny3ty  n^on)  is  jnn  jd  N^n. 

V.    Logical  and  For'mal  Arrangement. 
§  14. 

Logically,  every  V'p  (like  every  syllogism)  has  tree  propo- 
sitions,   of  which  two  are  the  Premises  and  one  the  Conclusion. 

The  first  premise  states,  that  two  certain  things,  A  and  B, 
stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  major  and  minor  impor- 
tance. 

The  second  premise  states  that  with  one  of  these  two  things 
(A)  a  certain  restrictive  or  permissive  law  is  connected. 

The  conclusion  is  that  the  same  law  is  the  more  applicable 
to  the  other  thing  (B). 

The  first  premise  is  termed  ]''i  n^Fin  the  outset  of  the  infer- 
ence^ or  Si'»Tt  i^lp^y,  the  7nost  essential  part  of  the  inference  ; 
while  the  final  conclusion  is  called  pT  tjlD  tlic  end  of  the 
Inference. 

The  formal  arrangement  of  these  three  propositions  differs, 
however,  from  this  logical  order,  as  a  Vp  is  usually  expressed 
by  two  compound  propositions,  one  of  wliich  is  the  antecedent 
and  the  other  the  consequent y  as  in  case  of  an  inference 
from  minor  to  major  : 

(3^^n)  mD«  (^p)  "'^  '•Ji^s  HD 


The  Inference  from  Minor  and  Major.  133 

'<  If  A  which  in  this  or  that  respect  is  of  minor  impor- 
tance, is  subject  to  a  certain  severity  of  the  law  ;  ought  not  B, 
which  is  of  majori  mportance,  he  the  more  subje(;t  to  the  same 
severity?"    Or,    in  case  of  an  inference  frome  major  to  minor: 

(mras)  nmt:  (niDn)  ""^  ^iibsi  hd 
(mtasty  pi:^«)  ptr  b^  s"?  (bp)  '"^  ''ii^sj 

''If  a  certain  allowance  is  made  by  the  law  in  the  case 
of  A,  which  is  of  major  importance  ;  ought  not  the  same  allow- 
ance be  the  more  made  in  the  case  of  B,  which  is  of  minor 
importance  ?" 

VI.  Illustrations  of   inferences  from  minor   to    major. 

a.  In  Exodus  xxii.  13,  the  law  is  laid  down  that  if  a  man 
borrow  of  his  neighbor  an  animal  or  a  thing,  and  the  animal 
die  or  the  object  be  destroyed,  the  borrower  must  restore  the 
loss.  But  it  is  not  expressly  mentioned  in  this  law  whether  the 
borrower  was  also  responsible  in  cases  when  the  borrowed 
animal  or  thing  is  stolen.  The  liability  in  this  eventuality 
is  then  proved  by  way  of  an  inference  from  the  law  regarding 
a  (paid)  depositary  who,  according  to  Exodus  xxii.  9 — 11,  is 
not  bound  to  make  restitution  when  the  animal  intrusted  to 
his  care  died  or  became  hurt,  and  yet  is  held  responsible  in 
case  the  intrusted  thing  was  stolen  {'dl^*'  IDJ^D  liy^  2J;i  DS1) 
The  inference  is  made  in  the  following  way  : 

'•If  the  depositary,  though  free  from  responsibility  for 
damage  and  death,  is  still  bound  to  restore  the  thing  stolen 
from  him,  ought  not  the  borrower,  who  is  responsible  for  dg.- 
mage  and  death,  to  be  the  more  bound  to  restore  the  thing 
stolen  from  him?"  In  this  inference  the  depositary  is  minor ^ 
the  borrower  7«<z;'^n     Baba  Metzia  95a. 

b.  By  a  similar  inference  it  is  proved  that  a  depositary 
has  to  make  restitution  in  cases  where  the  intrusted  thing  has 
become  lost^  though  the  law  only  speaks  of  his  responsibility 
for  theft  (Exodus  xxii.  11): 


134  IIERMEXEUTICS  OP  THE  TaLMUD. 

D't:*D  DJis^  n2r,p'j  -3"'::  no 

"If  he  lias  to  make  restitution  for  the  t/ie//, 
w'liich  is  almost  an  accident  (as  the  greatest  vigilance  may 
not  always  prevent  it),  how  much  the  more  is  restitution  to  be 
made  for  .'(fsing  (the  intrusted  object),  which  is  almost  a 
trespass  (since  he  was  deficient  in  the  necessary  care  and 
vigilance).  Here  nz'^^}  is  minor,  nT3S  major.  Baba  Metzia  94b. 

VII,    Illustration  of  an  inference  from  major  to  minor. 

§  16 
While  the  Sadducees  took  the  law  "Eye  for  eye"  etc., 
(Exodus  xxi.  24),  literally  as  jus  talionis,  the  rabbinical  inter- 
pretation was,  that  a  limb  was  not  actually  to  be  maimed  for  a 
limb,  but  that  the  harm  done  to  the  injured  person  was  esti- 
mated and  a  pecuniary  equivalent  paid  by  the  offender.  Among 
other  ai-gumcnts  in  support  of  this  interpretation  one  of  the 
rabbis  applied  the  inference  from  nuijor  to  minor,  referring  to 
the  law  (Exodus  xxi.  29—30),  l)y  which,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, the  proprietor  of  a  beast  which  is  notably  dangerous 
and  which  has  killed  a  person,  is  judged  liable  to  the  death 
penalty ;  but  the  caj^ital  punishment  could  be  redeemed  by 
money.  Now,  if  the  law  expressly  admits  a  pecuniar}'  compen- 
sation in  a  case  where  the  guilty  person  deserved  capital  pun- 
ishment, how  much  the  more  is  a  pecuniary  comj)eiisation  admis- 
sible in  our  case  where  it  does  not  concern  cajiital  punisHment : 

pDD  s^s  ^'2V  N*^  "^^tD  zinsn  u:v'^'  n^pr22  td 
po!3  n'^s  ^':v'^  i<bu  sin  p  nn-'o  u:v  s'?ty  ]SD 

Mechiltii  to  Exodus  xxi.  24. 
xiii.  Restrictions  in  the  aim'lication  of  inferences. 

§  n 

Conclusions  made  by  an  inferen(;e  are  restricted  by  three 
rules:  1-st,  ]n:D  mVi'?  inn  lOSi^Vl  "Itissntficlcnt  that  the 
result  derived  from  an  inference  bo  equivalent  to  the  law  from 
which  it  is  drawn";  that  is  to  say,  the  law  transferred  to  B 
(the  major),  mnst  never  surnass  in  severity  the  original  law  in 
A  (tlic  minor),  I'roni  which  t  licinfcrcncc  was  mad(,'. 


The  Inference  from  Minor  and  Major.  135 

Thus,  in  the  inference  made  in  the  Scripture  in  regard  to 
Miriam,  we  might  have  expected  that  tlie  time  of  her  exclusion 
from  the  camp  should  be  more  than  seven  days,  since  the  Lord's 
disfavor  is  of  more  consequence  than  a  human  father's;  never- 
theless, Scripture  says,  ''Let  her  be  shut  out  from  the  camp  seven 
days,"  wich  is  just  as  long  as  she  would  have  felt  humiliated  if 
her  father  had  treated  her  with  contumely.  On  this  passage 
the  restrictive  rule  just  mentioned  is  founded.  An  ample  appli- 
cation of  this  rule  is  found  in  Mishna  Baba  Kamma  IL  5. 

2d.  Another  restrictive  rule  is  pin  ]Q  pS^Jiy  ]''«  ''Ttie  in- 
ference from  minor  to  major  is  not  to  be  applied  in  the  penal 
law." 

The  reason  for  this  rule  lies  in  the  possibility  that  the  con- 
cusions  drawn  by  inference  might  have  been  erroneous,  so  that 
the  intiiction  of  a  penalty  derived  from  such  a  conclusion  would 
not  be  justified.' 

An  application  of  the  rule  j-'in  (!3  (''tt'Jiy  ]''«  is  made  in  Tal- 
mud Maccoth  5b,  to  refute  an  objection  to  the  rabbinical  inter- 
pretation of  the  law,  that  the  punishment  of  false  witnesses 
(Deuteronomy  xix.  19),  is  to  take  place  only  when  the  judg- 
ment against  the  falsely  accused  party  has  not  yet  been  executed. 
The  objection  to  this  interpretation  was  raised  by  way  of  an 
inference  from  minor  to  major: 


'Quite  analogous  to  this  rabbinical  rule  is  that  established  in 
modern  law,  "that  penal  statutes  must  be  construed  strictly.  They  can 
not,  therefore,  be  extended  by  their  spirit  or  by  equity  to  any  other 
offenses  than  those  clearly  described  and  provided  for."  (See  Bouvier's 
Law  Dictionary,  article  Penal  Statutes). 

^According  to  Talmudic  interpretation,  however,  this  rule  is  derived 
from  the  Scripture,  in  which  the  law  sometimes  finds  it  ixecessary  to 
expressly  mention  a  case  in  which  the  punishment  is  to  be  inflicted, 
though  it  could  have  been  easily  found  by  a  mere  inference  from  an- 
other case.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  regard  to  the  law,  Exodus  xxi.  33,  we 
read  in  Mechilta  :  {^-iN  m^'  '"'3  ^"D  PJO  mn  nniD  sbx  "h  PK  ^^^  nriQ"'  '31 

D.s  xn  pty  bs   vh  n-i"i3n    n^n  nnian  d.^  na  h  k'"'  ion'  vb^  ny 
X''^r\  ID  pcTJiy  pKB'  "ydh  niD'  '3  noxj  *i3:5  pnn  p  riK'jy  p  moN 

In  Talmud  Maccoth  5  h.  the  same  principle  is  proved  in  a  similar 
way  from  Leviticus  xx.  17. 


136  Hermenedtics  of  the  Talmud. 

"If  the  "witnesses  are  to  be  put  to  death,  though  their  false  tes- 
timony has  not  caused  the  death  of  the  innocent,  how  much  the 
more  when  it  really  had  fatal  consequences?" 

But  tliis  quite  logical  objection  is  removed  by  the  axiom  ]''S 
l^n  |D  I'^tyjiy  "No  penalty  can  be  inflicted  which  is  based 
upon  an  inference." 

3d.  A  third  restrictive  rule  in  the  application  of  inferences 
of  n"p  is  laid  down  in  Mishna  Yadaim  iii.   2: 

or  as  the  rule  is  expressed  more  concisely  in  Talmud  Sabb.  132, 
andNazir  5T:  "D^nD  V'p  j'^il  ]''X  "No  inferences  must  be  made 
from  traditional  laws  to  establish  a  new  law."' 

IX.   Refutation  of  inferences. 
§    18. 

Not  every  n"1p  offered  in  the  Talmudic  discussions  of  the 
law  is  correct  and  valid.  We  sometimes  find  there  very  proble- 
matic and  even  sophistical  inferences  set  forth  merely  as  sup- 
positions or  hypotheses;  these  are,  however,  finally  refuted.  A 
refutation  of  a  n'lp  is  called  sriT'S. 

Refutations  may  be  made  in  two  different  ways:  a.  Either 
the  correctness  of  the //r ;///><?  z'«  the  antecedent  is  disputed  by 
showing  that  A  (ID^IS)  which  was  supposed  to  be  of  minor 
im])ortance  (^p)  is  in  some  other  respects  really  of  major  im- 
portance (man);  or /^.  The  correctness  of  the  conclusion  in  the 
consequent  is  diputed  by  showing  that  the  peculiar  law  con- 
nected with  A  (nn'^D)  can  not  be  transferred  to  B  (id'?)  as 
it  is  not  transferred  toC,  which  in  certain  respects  is  like  B. 

The  first  kind  of  refutation  is  called  SJm  S'lp'^yN*  N^'T'S  a 
refutation  of  the  most  essential  part  of  the  inference^  and  the  sec- 
(jnd  kind  is  termed  SJ"'"r  C]1DS  S2'T'E3  refutation  of  the  final 
conclusion  of  the  inference.  'J'he  styles  of  expression  in  these  two 


'R.  Akilia,  liowevcr,  did  not  accept  this  restrictive  rule,  but  at- 
tempted to  nuik<' inferences  even  from  traditionaliaws  to  establlBh  a 
new  law.    See  Sabhatli   i:?2a.  Compare  also  Talni.  Jcr.  Kiddushin  1,  2: 


The  Inference  from  Minor  and  Major.  137 

kinds  of  refutation   arc   quite  different.     A  refutation  of  the 
premise  is  usually  expressed  in  the  foil  owing:  way : 

(131 133  man)  pty  ■'ji^s^  nn 
(IDT  -[33  niDn  irssr)  nT3  nisxr 

"Why  has  A  that  particular  severe  provision  of  the  law  ? 
Because  it  is  of  7najor  importance  in  this  or  that  respect.  But 
how  will  you  apply  it  to  B,  wich  is  not  so  important  in  the  same 
respect?" 

The  refutation  of  the  final  conclusion  is  usually  expressed 
by  the  words,  "p^  n^ST*  ""JI^S.  "The  case  of  C  proves  it;"  viz.: 
that  such  a  conclusion  can  not  be  admitted,  since  C  is  of  equal 
importance  with  B,  and  still  the  restriction  of  A,  which  is 
intended  to  be  transferred  to  B,  is  not  applied  to  C. 

X.  Illustration  op  the  different  kinds  of  refutation. 

§  19. 

I.  It  is  well  known  that  the  law,  "thou  shalt  not  seethe 
a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk,"  is,  according  to  Talmudic  interpre- 
tation, a  general  prohibition  against  boiling  any  kind  of  meat 
in  any  kind  of  milk.  After  having  demonstrated  that  3^n3  ^^3 
(meat,  which  in  contradiction  to  this  law  had  been  boiled  with 
milk),  is  forbidden  to  be  eaten  (n^''3K3  mOX),  it  is  undertaken 
to  prove  that  it  is  likewise  forbidden  to  make  any  otlier  use 
of  it  (nt<Jn3  mOiS).  One  of  the  rabbis  tried  to  prove  this  by 
way  of  an  inference  from  n^"iy  (the  fruits  of  a  tree  during  the 
first  three  years,  wich  fruits  were  deemed  forbidden  to  be  used 
in  any  way  nS2n3  mDN).  The  inference  was  made  in  the  fol- 
lowing way  : 

n«jn3  Tr\\z)^  n-i''3V  n3  m3Vi  vh"^  n^nj?  na 
n«2n3  -nD«ir  jn  i:^s  nT3y  i3  m3v:ir  3^n3  n'j3 

"If  those  fruits,  regarding  which 
no  law  had  been  violated,  are  forbidden  to  be  used  in  any 
way,  ought  not  meat  and  milk,  which,  in  violation  of  a  law, 
have  been  boiled  together,  the  more  be  forbidden  to  be  used 
in  any  way?" 

The  premise   in   this  inference  is  that   n^iy  is   of  miner 


138  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud 

importance  (hp)  compared  with  n"Z2;  but  tliis  premise  is  dis- 
puted by  demonstrating  that  in  certain  respects  it  was,  in  fact, 
of  major  importance,  since  those  fruits  had  at  no  time  before 
been  permitted  to  be  used,  while  in  regard  to  n'j2  there  had 
been  a  time  (namely,  before  being  boiled  together),  when  the 
use  of  each  of  these  components  was  allowed: 

(nSjna  nniDX  i^'^sj^)  nn-'-n  nytt'  nb  nnM  s^  pa*  r^r^b  -d 
nn-inn  ny*^'  ^b  n^n^*  n"a2  naxn 

Chullin  115b;  Mechilta  to  Exodus  xxiii.  19. 

2.  Refutation  of  the  conclusion  in  the  inference.  An  illus- 
tration of  this  kind  of  refutation  is  furnished  in  Mishna  Pe- 
sachim  vi.  1,  2.  There  the  law  is  laid  down  that  if  the  eve  of 
nD£3  happened  to  fall  on  a  Sabbath,  the  sacrificial  acts  with  the 
Paschal  lamb,  as  the  slaughtering,  sprinkling,  etc.,  were  allowed, 
though  such  acts  are  otherwise  regarded  as  labor  (n^S^D), 
while  certain  preparatory  acts  (as  carrying  the  lamb  to  the 
temple,  etc.),  though  not  regarded  as  real  labor,  but  only  as 
r^yy  (incompatible  witli  a  day  of  rest),  are  not  allowed.  This 
restriction  is  disputed  l)y  R.  Eliezcr,  on  the  ground  of  the  fol- 
lowing inference: 

''If  slaughtering,  though  a  real  labor,  abrogates  the  Sab- 
bath, ought  not  things  not  regarded  as  real  labor  the  iiimc  uh- 
rogate  the  Sabl)ath?" 

But  this  logical  conclusion  is  refuted  by  R.  Joshua: 

"A  common  holiday  pi'ovcs  that  this  (conclusion  is  not  ad- 
missible, lor  on  such  aday  some  real  labors  (as  cooking,  baking, 
etc.),  arc  permitted,  while  at  the  same  time  certain  actions, 
which  fall  under  the  category  ofrnDD*,  are  positively  pro- 
hibited." 

XI     REINSTATEMENT  OF  A   RP^FUTEt)  INFERENCE. 

§     20. 

"When  an  inference  has  been  refuted  in  one  of  the  two  ways 

just  mentioned,  the  attemi)t  is  sometimes  made  to  defend  and 

retain  it  by  removing  the  objection  raised  in  the  refutation.  If 


The  Inference  from  Minor  and  Major.  139 

the  arguments  proflfered  for  this  purpose  are  found  to  be  correct, 
the  original  inference  is  reinstated;  if  not,  the  refutation  is 
sustained  and  the  inference  finally  rejected. 

Thus,  for  instance,  in  regard  to  R.  PJliezer's  inference,  which 
R.  Joshua  refuted  by  the  objection  rT'^'l"'  12"!'',  R.  Eliezer,  in 
turn,  attempted  to  remove  this  objection  by  asking:  n''''t<1  HD 
mi'D^  mS^I  "What  can  that  which  is  voluniary  \tvo\Q  against 
a  comjnandV  That  is  to  say,  if  m^ti'  actions  are  not  allowed 
on  la'"!^,  it  must  be  remembered  that  they  concern  only 
voluntary  or  private  aftairs,  while  the  prohibition  of  such 
actions  in  regard  to  the  Paschal  lamb  concerns  a  religious  duty 
which  is  expressly  commanded. 

R.  Joshua  was  silenced  by  this  point  of  argumentation,  and 
seemed  to  be  willing  to  withdraw  his  objection  to  R.  Eliezer's 
inference;  but  now  R.  Akilja  a})peared  in  the  arena  to  defend 
R.  Joshua's  objection  by  showing  that  a  difference  between  mtt^l 
and   T'A'^'Ci  could   not  be  admitted.  He  said  KTIty  n"'3in   nST" 

n^ry-  n«  nnn  nrsi  maty  mtyis  s^m  rmti  ''The  sprinkling 

(by  which  an  unclean  person  was  declared  to  be  again  clean) 
may  prove  it,  because  this  also  is  an  act  belonging  to  the  cate- 
gory of  riiati*,  and  at  the  same  time  concerns  a  co7mnand 
(since  the  performance  of  this  act  would  make  the  person  fit  to 
bring  his  Paschal  offering),  and  still  it  is  not  to  be  done  on  a 
Sabbath-day;  therefore,  you  should  nc-t  wonder  that  in  our  case 
those  other  acts  (the  carrying  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  etc.),  though 
concerning  a  mXD  and  only  riUU^,  are  not  to  be  done  on  a 
Sabbath  day." 

A  repeated  attempt  of  R.  Eliezer  to  reinstate  his  infer- 
ence by  disputing  R.  Akiba's  new  objection,  having  been  frus- 
trated by  the  latter's  counter-arguments,  the  inference  was  fi- 
nally rejected. 

XII.     Sophistical  inferences. 

§21. 

In  conclusion, we  wish  to  call  attention  to  some  sophistical 
inferences  of  ^'"0  mentioned  in  the  Talinndic  literature,  which 
are  refuted  simply  by  an  argument  ad  absurdum. 


140  Hbrmeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

One  of  these  inferences'is  quoted  in  the  Mislina  Yadaimiv. 
1:  "The  Sadducees  said,  We  have  a  strong  argument  against 
you  Pharisees.  You  teach  that  one  is  responsible  for  a  damage 
caused  by  his  ox  or  ass,  but  not  responsible  for  a  damage 
caused  by  his  slave  or  his  bondwoman;  is  this  not  contrary  to 
a  simple  rational  inference?" 

ipT:3  3''''n  ••:«  nn  ni'^D  onn  z^^n  •':"'«d  ''-nam  mtt'  d«  no 
jpTi2  r-'n  ""nKty  p  ir«  ni:iD  unn  I'^^n  •':«tr  •'noKi  nnj; 

''If  I  be  responsible  for  my  animals  regarding  which  I  have 
no  religious  obligation,  how  much  more  must  I  then  be  respon- 
sible for  the  damage  caused  by  ray  servants,  regarding  whom  I 
have  a  religious  obligation?" 

The  Pharisees  promptly  answered:  ''Nol  I  am  responsible 
for  my  animals,  which  have  no  free  will  and  deliberation,  but 
not  for  my  slaves,  who  have  knowledge  and  deliberation.  If  I 
offend  them,  they  may  go  and  deliberately  set  fire  to  my  neigh- 
bor's property.     Should  I  then  be  bound  to  pay?" 

Another  still  more  sophistical  yp  is  mentioned  in  Mass. 
Derech  Eretz  Rabba,  chapter  I.  A  (certain  Jose  b.  Tadai,  of 
Tiberias,  tried,  in  the  presence  of  R.  Gamaliel,  to  ridicule  the 
application  of  inferences  in  ritual  laws  by  the  following 
paralogism: 

nnaa  mos  •»:«  nn  nma  '>:Kty  ^nui<  no 
nn33  mD«  mnsiy  ]n  ir«  n^  iids  •'^sty  ts'^s  nil's 

''If  the  marriage  with  one's  own  daughter  is  i:)rohibitc(l, 
although  the  marriage  with  her  mother  is  permitted,  how 
much  more  unlawful  must  it  l)e  to  marry  another  married 
woman's  daughter,  since  tlu;  marriage  with  her  mother,  a  mar- 
ried woman,  is  positively  prohibited?" 

The  fallacy^in  this  inference  is  that  the  conclusion  contra- 
dicts the  premise.  Tlic  preiriise  is  that  the  marriage  with  one's 
own  wife  is  lawful,  while  according  to  the  conclusion  any  mar- 
riage woukl  be  prohibited.  Hut  K.  (Jamaliel  answered  caus- 
tically: "(jro,  thou,  and  take  care  of  the  high-priest,iii  regard  to 
whom  it  is  written, Only  a  virgin  fron  among  his  people  he  shall 
marry;  1  shall  then  take  care  ot  all  Israel."  That  is  to  say, 
show  md,  in  the  first  place,  how,  according  to  the  inference,  the 


The  Inference  prom  Minor  and  Major.  141 

high-priest  could  enter  a  marriage,  as  Scripture  expressly  per- 
mits liim  to  do,  and  I  shall  prove  the  same  permission  for  all 
Israelites. 

According  to  another  version,  R.  Gamaliel  excommunicated 
the  scoffing  questioner,  remarking:  |D  121  llpj?^  121  \^11  \^i< 
nnnn  '  'No  inference  can  be  admitted  in  which  the  conclusion 
contradicts  the  law." 

A  masterpiece  of  sophistical  inferences  is  recorded  in  San- 
hedrin  17.  Referring  to  a  tradition,  according  to  which  none 
could  aspire  for  membership  in  the  ancient  Sanhedrin,  without 
having  given  a  proof  of  his  dialectic  ability  by  demonstrating, 
for  instance,  the  cleanness  of  those  eight  reptiles  which  the  law 
(Leviticus  xi.  29,  30),  expressly  declares  to  be  unclean,  one  of 
the  Amoraira  jokingly  remarked:  "If  I  had  been  living  at  the 
time  when  the  Sanhedrin  was  still  in  existence,  I  might  have 
aspired  for  membership  by  offering  the  following  inference: 

*'  I  a  serpent,  though  killing  men  and  beasts,  and  thus  in- 
creasing ritual  uncleanness,  still  is  regarded  a  clean  animal;' 
ought  not  a  reptile  that  does  not  kill  and  increase  uncleanness 
be  the  more  regarded  clean?" 

This  inference,  though  merely  intended  to  display  dialectic 
acumen,  is  earnestly  refuted  by  the  following  argumentum  ad 
absurdunr.  It,  according  to  the  first  premise  of  this  inference, 
a  serpent  ought  to  be  unclean  on  account  of  its  capability  to 
kill  a  person,  then  any  wooden  instrument  by  which  a  person 
can  be  killed  ought  to  be  unclean. 

This  inference  and  its  refutation  are  of  some  intrest  as  an 
instance  which  shows  clearly  that  many  ot  the  Talmudic  dis- 
cussions on  the  law  had  no  other  purpose  than  to  be  a  mental 
tournament,  in  which  the  rabbis  and  their  disciples  delighted 
to  exercise  their  intellectual  powers  and  exhibit  their  skill  and 
acuteness  in  the  art  of  reasoning  and  debating. 


'The  serpent  is,  of  course,  unclean  in  respect  to  food,  but  it  is  clean 
in  as  far  as  it  does  not  belong  to  those  eight  reptiles  concerning  which 
the  law  ordained  :  "Whosoever  doth  touch  them,  when  they  are  dead, 
shall  be  unclean  until  the  even." 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  ANALOGY  OF  GEZERA  SHAVA. 

Rule  II. 

Introductory. 

§22. 

Analogy,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  denotes  such 
resemolance  between  things,  as  enables  us  to  assume  of  one 
what  we  know  of  the  other.  Although  conclusions  drawn 
from  analogy  do  not  in  general  afibrd  certainty^  but  only  some 
degree  of  jjrobability  at  best,  much  recourse  is  often  taken  to 
such  conclusions  in  every  branch  of  human  knowledge,  espe- 
cially when  all  other  means  of  argumentation  fail. 

The  argument  from  analogy  is  also  admitted  as  an  aid  in 
modern  legal  interpretation,  either  to  determine  an  ambiguous 
expression  in  a  law,  or  to  decide  a  case  not  expressly  provided 
for  therein,  or  to  suj)ply  a  delect  in  one  law  by  i-eference  to  the 
fuller  contents  of  another  law. 

The  analogy  between  two  laws  may  be  either  real  or  formal 
It  is  real  when  these  laws  are  of  the  same  nature  and  the  cases 
treated  of  in  them  resemble  each  other  in  material  points  and 
in  important  relations.  It  is  formal,  when  the  resemblance 
consists  merely  in  some  external  points  and  relations,  as  in 
the  wording  of  the  laws  or  in  the  connection  in  which  they  are 
set  forth.  Arguments  from  a  real  analogy  existing  between 
different  laws  are  very  often  applied  in  the  Rabbinical  interpre- 
tation. Such  an  analogy  is  termed  li'i^fD  riD  of  which  we  shall 
speak  in  the  following  chapter.  But  the  Rabbis  also  admit  the 
argument  from  a  formal  or  external  analogy.  Whether  also 
this  kind  of  argumentation  be  in  accordance  with  logical  rea- 
soning, depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  conclusion  which  is 
intended  to  be  drawn  tlKM-ofiom,  If  the  external  relations 
upon  which  the  argument  proceeds,  imply  also  an  internal 
relation  which  has  a  bearing  on  the  conclusion,  it  is  logical 
and  valid,  otiiorwise  it  is  not.     There  are  especially    two  rules 


The  Analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  143 

of  Talmudical  interpretation  in  which  use  is  made  of  this  kind 
ol" analogy.     These  are  termed:  1.  Gezera  Shava;  2.  Hakkesh. 

A.     GEZERA  SHAVA. 

I, — TERM,  CLASSIFICATION  AND  FORMULA.     , 
§  23. 

The  term  Gezera  Shava  {nw  m"'T:i)  means  literally  either 
a  similar  section  (part)  or  a  similar  tlecision  (decree).  In  the 
Talmudic  phraseology  it  denotes  an  ana/ogy  of  expressions,  that 
is,  an  analogy  based  on  identical  or  similar  words  occurring  in 
two  different  passages  of  Scripture.  The  Gezera  Shava  is 
used:  _^rsif,  as  an  exegetical  aid  to  determine  the  meaning  of  an 
ambiguous  expression  in  a  law;  second,  as  an  argument  incon- 
sti'uing  laws  with  reference  to  each  other,  so  that  certain  provis- 
ions connected  with  one  of  them  may  be  shown  to  be  applicable 
also  to  tbe  other.  We  have,  then,  two  kinds  of  Gezera  Shava, 
and  in  order  to  distinguish  them  clearly  we  propose  to  call  the 
former  the  exegetical  an<l  the  latter  the  constructional  Gezera 
Shava,     The  usual  formula  for  both  kinds  of  Gezera  Shava  is: 

—  '^rh  icsji i«3  nD«: 

|N3  r|S '■^rh  no 

Here  is  said: There  is  said:.  . .  . 

As  there, so  here. 

II. — THE  EXECETICAL  GEZERA  SHAVA. 
§23. 

The  theory  of  the  exegetical  Gezera  Shava  is  expressed  in 
the  Talmudical  phrase  sometimes  used  in  connection  with  this 
kind  of  analogy:  tt'mSDn  jD  QinD  TID^^  ''the  indefinite  is  to  be 
explained  by  the  definite,"  that  is  to  say,  if  an  expression  in  one 
passage  of  Scripture  is  used  ambiguously,  its  meaning  is  to  be 
ascertained  from  another  passage,  where  the  same  expression 
occurs  in  a  connection  in  which  it  is  clearly  defined. 

This  quite  rational  theory  is  also  adopted  in  modern  scien- 
tific exegesis    in  reference  to  parallel  passages,  and    is  in  some 


144  Hermeneutics  op  the  Talmud. 

measure  admitted  even  in  the  legal  interpretation  of  statutes 
and  documents.* 

Examples  of  exegetical  Gezera  Shava: 

1.  In  Levit.  xvi.  29  the  law  relating  to  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment enjoins  CDTna'tS:  ns  i:j;n  "Ye  shall  afdictyour  souls," 
without  defining  the  nature  of  this  affliction.  But  the  expres- 
sion n^y  occurs  in  other  passages  in  a  connection  where  it  evi- 
dently refers  to  the  suffering  of  want  and  hunger,  as  for  instance 
in  the  passage  "[a^j;n''1  "pyi  Deut.  viii.  3.  (Compare  also  Psalm 
XXXV.  13  ^tt'Ei  Dl^'2  ''n''ij;).  Hence  the  expression  in  our  pas- 
sage is  to  be  taken  in  the  meaning  which  tradition  has  put  on 
it,  /.  e .,   as  a  term  oi  fasting. 

Siphra  to  Levit.  xvi,,  and  Talmud  Yoma,  74. 

2.  In  the  law  restricting  the  time  of  slavery,  Exod.  xxi. 
2,  the  expression  i-|2j?  13j;  is  somewhat  ambiguous,  as  it  might 
mean  either  a  servant  of  a  Hebrew  (a  heathen  slave  belonging 
to  an  Israelite)  or  a  Hebrew  servant  (an  Israelite  who  has  been 
sold  as  a  slave).  That  the  expression  is  to  be  taken  in  the  lat- 
ter sense   (the  word  i"i3jj  being  here  used  as  an  adjective  and 


>  "One  of  the  chief  rules  in  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  doubtful 
words  is  to  try  first  to  ascertain  the  meaning— from  other  passages  of 
the  same  text  in  which  the  ambiguous  word  occurs,  so  used  that  it 
leaves  no  doubt — by  parallels."  Francis  Lieber,  "Legal  and  Political 
Hermeneutics,"  page  91. — The  following  rule  of  interpretation,  which 
is  quoted  in  "Broom's  Legal  Maxims,"  page  586,  comes  still  nearer  to 
the  character  of  Talmudical  Gezera  Shava :  '  'Where  an  act  of  Parlia- 
ment has  received  a  judicial  construction  putting  a  certain  meaning  on 
its  words,  and  the  Legislature  in  a  subsequent  act  in  pari  materia  uses 
the  same  words,  there  is  a  presumption  that  the  Legislature  used  those 
words  intending  to  express  tlie  meaning  which  it  knew  had  been  put 
upon  the  words  bbfore,  and  unless  there  is  something  to  rebut  that  pre- 
sumption the  act  should  be  so  construed,  even  if  the  words  were  such 
that  they  might  originally  have  been  construed  otherwise." 


The  Analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  145 

not  as  a  noun)  is  proved  by  a  reference  to  Deut.  xv.  12,  where 
in  a  repetition  of  the  same  law  the  servant  is  called  "'"izj?"  "{^VtH 
"thy  Hebrew  brother.'" 

■i2ia  ainsn  ^sntr"'  ]Z2  ]hnb  hd 
nniD  zinzn  ^snty  pa  jsa  c]s* 

Mechilta  to  Exodus  xxi. 

in. — THE   CONSTRUCTIONAL   GEZERA   SHAVA. 
§   25 

While  the  exegetieal  analogy  is  limited  to  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  meaning  of  an  ambiguous  word,  the  construc- 
tional Gezera  Shava  intends  to  supply  an  omission  in  one  law 
by  the  more  explicit  provisions  of  another  law.  For  this  pur- 
pose use  is  made  of  an  identical  characteristic  word  occurring 
in  both  laws.  By  showing  that  this  characteristic  word  has 
some  bearing  on  certain  provisions  made  in  one  case,  it  is  ar- 
gued that  the  same  provisions  must  apply  also  in  the  other 
case. 

IV.  — ILLUSTRATIONS. 

§  26. 
1.  llillel,  the  elder,  who  first  mentioned  this  rule  of  inter- 
pretation, applied  it  in  the  following  case:  The  eve  of  the  Pe- 
sach  festival  once  happened  to  be  on  a  Sabbath,  and  the  question 
was  whether  it  should  be  permitted  to  sacrifice  the  Paschal 
lamb  on  such  a  day.  Among  other  arguments  to  prove  the 
l^ermission,  Hillel  referred  also  to  the  rule  of  Gezera  Shava. 
He  argued:  In  the  law  concerning  the  daily  offering  it  is  said 
(Num.  xxiii.  2)  thas  it  was  to  be  brought  nj;iC3  "in  its  due 
season,"  and  also  in   the  law  regarding  the  Paschal  lamb  we 


'The  ancient  versions,  as  well  as  tlie  modern  commentaries  on  the 
Bible,  fully  coincide  with  the  Rabbinical  interpretation  of  this  expres- 
sion. Strange  enough,  Saalschuetz,  in  his  "Mosaisches  Recht,"  page 
7<  2,  tries  to  defend  the  other  interpretation  so  promptly  refuted  by  tlie 
Rabbis,  and  claims  that  '13y  13y  refers  to  a  certain  class  of  heathen 
slaves  in  the  service  of  a  Hebrew.  Tompare  Mielziner's  "Die  Verhaelt- 
nisse  (les  Sklaven  bei  den  alteii  Hcbraein.""  page  83, 


146  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

read:  The  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Pass^vci  'ii^'lCi 
''in  its  due  season."  (Num.  ix.  2.)  But  concerning  the  daily 
offering  the  law  expressly  provides  that  it  was  to  be  brought 
also  on  the  Sabbath  day.  (Num.  xxviii.  10.)  The  expression 
nj;'D3  then  means  that  the  offering  must  take  place  at  the  ap- 
pointed time  under  all  circumstances,  even  on  a  Sabbath;  there- 
fore, the  same  expression  nyia^  in  regard  to  the  Paschal 
lamb  likewise  enjoins  that  the  offering  take  place  at  the  time 
appoined,  even  on  a  Sabbath  day. 

TJ2n2  TiyiD  nosii  nosn  nv^o  nas: 

nztrn  ns  nnn  Tona  niDsn  nyiis  -jd 

pQun  ns  nnn  nosa  Tasn  nyia  cjs 

Pesachini,  page  66  a. 

2.  Another  example,  taken  from  the  civil  law,  may  here 
be  added  to  illustrate  the  application  of  the  Gezera  Shava  in 
construing  a  law  which  appears  to  be  defective. 

In  Exod.  xxii.  6-8,  and  9-12,  are  contained  two  different 
laws  concerning  the  safe-keeping  of  the  property  of  a  fellow- 
man.  The  traditional  interpretation  correctly  distinguishes 
between  these  two  laws.  The  lirst  treats  of  a  gratuitous  guar- 
dian, while  the  other  refers  to  a  paid  depositary  who  has  a 
greater  responsibility  than  the  former.  Now,  the  first  law 
seems  to  be  somewhat  defective.  It  provides  that  if  the  ob- 
jects intrusted  have  been  stolen  from  the  house  of  the  guardian 
"he  shall  be  brought  to  the  judges — that  he  has  not  put  his 
hand  to  his  meighbor's  goods,"  but  nothing  is  said  of  the  way 
in  which  he  was  to  prove  this,  neither  is  it  sai(i  whether  he  was 
free  from  making  restitution  if  he  succeeded  in  proving  this. 
The  llabhis  supply  this  defect  by  means  of  a  Gezera  Shava. 
They  refer  to  the  second  law  in  which  (verse  10)  the  same 
phrase  occurs,  "that  he  has  not  put  his  hand  to  his  neighbor's 
goods."  Here  the  phrase  is  introduced  by  the  words,  "an  oath 
of  the  Lord  shall  be  between  them  both,"  and  is  followed  by  the 
words,  ";ind  shall  not  make  restitution."  Hence,  according  to 
this  analogy,   the  plirase  in  the  lirst  case  must  also  be  supplied 


The  Analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  147 

viz.:  He  sluill  be  brought  before  the  judges  to  take  an  oath  '  that 
lie  did  not  act  IVaudiUeutly,  whicli  oath  Trees  liiui  IVom  making 
restitution. 

Mechilta  to  Exod.  xxii,,  and  Baba  Metzia  41b. 

The  examples  given  above  illustrate  the  process  and  cha^ 
racter  of  most  of  the  Gezeroth  Shavoth  which  are  quoted  intlie 
Talmud  in  the  name  of  the  great  authorities  of  the  Mishnic  per- 
iod. The  external  analogy  (the  parity  of  expressions)  from 
which  the  argumentation  proceeds,  is  tliere  generally  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  imply  also  an  internal  or  real  analogy  wliich  jus- 
tifies the  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  it. 

Usually  the  two  words  which  form  the  basis  for  a  Gezera 
Shava  are  exactly  alike,  but  sometimes  even  such  words  are 
used  for  this  purpose  which,  though  ditl'erent  in  expression,  are 
identical  in  their  meaning.  Thus,  for  instance,  a  certain  ana- 
logy is  occasionally  formed  on  the  basis  of  the  expressions  2^1 
("3"  "the  priest  shall  return''''  (Levit.  xiv.  89),  and  jri3n  S31 
•'the  priest  shall  come'"  {ibid.,  44),  since  the  verb  "to  return" 
is  almost  identical  with  the  verb  *'to  come"  (as  the  former 
means  to  come  again.) 

Siplira  to  Levit  xiv.,  and  very  often  quoted  in  the  Talmud. 

V. — ^THE  EXORBITANT  GEZERA  SHAVA. 

§  -27 

There  is  a  peculiar  kind  ofGezera  Shava  sometimes  resort- 
ed to,  especially  by  Amoraim,  which  is  quite  different  froui 
the  rational  character  of  the  analogies  generally  used  by  the 
Tanaim.  Its  peculiarity  consists  in  this,  that  the  argument 
from  a  parity  of  expressions  is  also  admitted  in  cases  where 
the  two  laws  or  passages,  compared  with  each  other,  have  noth- 
ing   in  common  except  a  single,  often  very  insignificant  word 


iThe  Septuagint  already  supplied  the  passage  in  this  way  by  adding 
"he  shall  appear  before  the  judges"   the  words  nai  6/isirai  "and  he 


to 

shall  swear." 


148   ^  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

which  has  not  the  least  natural  bearing  on  the  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  therefrom. 

It  is  obvious  tliat  arguments  from  such  mere  verbal  ana- 
logies easily  result  in  what  is  termed  in  Logic  a  fallacy^  or 
sophistical  conclusion.  It  must,  however,  be  stated  that  the 
Amoraim  never  used  such  purely  verbal  analogies  for  the 
purpose  of  deducing  a  new  law  from  Scripture,  but  merely  as 
an  attempt  to  find  a  Scriptural  supporL  for  an  opinion  expressed 
by  one  of  the  authorities  in  the  Mishna.' 

This  kind  of  Gezera  Shava  is  externally  characterized  by 
being  usually  introduced  by  this  peculiar  formula  ""'~D"S\nS 
or  "~"lD"~iI2:i  "that  is  derived  from,"  followed  by  the  two 
identical  words  on  which  the  analogy  in  question  is  assumed  to 
be  based. 

VI.  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  EXORBITANT  USES  OF  GEZERA  SHAVA. 

§  28. 
a.  In  Mishna  Sanhedrin  I.  1,  it  is  stated  that  criminal 
cases  involving  corporal  punishment  (stripes)  could  be  decided 
l)yaminor  court  of  three  judges,  but  according  to  the  opinion 
of  R.  Ishmael,  such  cases  required  a  higher  criminal  court  of 
twenty-three  judges.  The  reason  for  this  divergence  of  opinion 
was,  probably,  that  this  Rabbi  regarded  the  infliction  of  corpo- 
ral punishment  as  too  serious  a  matter  to  be  left  to  the  deci- 
sion of  a  civil  court  of  three;  as  a  criminal  case  it  ought,  like 
a  case  of  capital  punishment,  to  be  judged  by  the  higiusr  court 
of  twenty-three.  But  the  Gemara,  commenting  on  this  Mishna, 
wants  to  know  the  Scriptural  ground  on  which  R.  Ishmael 
based  his  analogy,  and  in  answer  to  this  question  the  Babylo- 
nian Amora,  R.  Ashi,  thinks  that  he  can  find  such  a  basis  in 
the  word  ytyi  'Mh(5  guilty"  or  criminal,  which  occurs  as  well  in 
the  law  rclerring  to  corporal  ])unishuient  (Deut.  xxv.  2)  as  in 
that  regarding  tlic  execution  of  ca])ital  punishment.  (Num. 
xxxv.  :n.) 

mn-'D  ^2^^nD  ytrn  yt^'n  «^r« 

Talmud  Sanhedrin  10, 


'Comjiare  Z.  Frankel's  "Palaestinishe  und  Alexandrinisciie  Schrift 
forshung,"  page  20. 


The  Analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  149 

f>.  JVlishna  Kiddnshin  I.  1  lays  down  the  law  that  one  of 
the  means  to  contract  marriage  was  tiDD,  that  is,  the  giving  of 
a  piece  of  money  or  its  value  to  the  woman,  with  the  express  in- 
tention of  engaging  lier  for  this  consideration  as  his  wife.  The 
Gemara  asks  for  a  Biblical  basis  of  this  law,  and  the  following 
answer  is  given:  The  Law,  in  speaking  of  marriage,  uses  the 
expression  ntt'S  w'^X  np'^  "'3  "if  a  man  take  a  wife"  (Deut.  xxii. 
13);  but  np^  "to  iake'^  also  means  "to  acguire^^  property,  ^  and 
is  used  elsewhere  in  connection  with  money  given  in  considera- 
tion for  the  acquisition  of  property  ijDa  np  r\T^ir\  CjD^Tini  (Gen. 
xxiii.  13);  he*ice  also  a  wife  is  acquired  by  means  of  money. 

pnsv  m'^D  nn-'p  nn^p  no: 

Talmud  Kiddushin  2a. 

As  to  illustrations  of  Gezeroth  Shavoth  of  a  still  more  de- 
cidedly sophistical  character,  we  refer  to  the  following  two 
examples  in  which  an  argument  from  analogy  is  based,  in  one 
instance,  on  an  identical  prcnoim  (n^)  and  in  the  other  on  an 
identical  adverb  (CtS^),  occurring  in  two  laws  or  passages  of  to- 
tally ditferent  nature  and  contents.'' 

Talmud  Chagiga,  4a, 


'In  the  Pentateuch,  however,  the  word  np7  noAvhere  has  the  mean- 
ing of  "to  acquire  or  to  buy;"  it  occurs  in  this  meaning  only  a  few 
times  in  some  of  the  other  books  of  the  Bible  (2  Ham.  iv.  6  ;  Prov,  xxxi. 
16,  and  Nehem  x.  83  i;  but  in  the  Talmudic  idiom  it  is  almost  exclusi- 
vely used  in  this  sense. — The  formality  of  contracting  marriage  by 
means  of  a  piece  of  money  was  probably  of  a  late  origin,  and  Avas  per- 
haps infhienced  by  a  similar  Roman  custom  — the  nuptials  by  coemptio. 
The  probability  of  such  an  influence  gains  some  ground  if  we  compare 
the  expression'oftheMishna  nX''a3  '1DtJ'2e)DDl  D^DIT  r\]:r:>V^2  n'JpJ  HtJ'Xn 
with  the  corresponding  expression  used  by  Gajus  I.,  §  110,  in  speaking 
of  the  Roman  custom  :  "Feminae  olim  tribus  modis  in  manum  conve- 
niebant :  usu,  farreo,  coemptione."  It  is  moreover  e%  ident  that  the 
civil  law  of  the  Mishna,  though  in  doctrines  and  principles  so  widely 
different  from  the  Roman  law,  adopted  several  legal  formalities  from 
the  latter  and  modified  them  according  to  the  leading  Jewish  principles. 

^A  very  extensive  use  of  this  kind  of  Grezera  Shava  was  made 
esp'^cially  in  the  Agada  (the  homiletical  explanation  of  moral  and 
historical  passages  of  Scripture),  where  it  was  not  restricted  by  any 
rules.  There  it  gave  rise  to  many  of  those  most  fanciful  interpretations 
and  legendary  narratives  quoted  in  the  Midrash   and   Talmud. 


1 50  Hermbneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

V 

Aboda  Zara  29b. 

VII.       RESTRICTIONS  IN  THE    USE    OF    GEZERA   SHAVA. 

§.    29. 

Theexorbitancies  which  someteaclierspremitted  themselves 
to  make  use  of  in  the  application  of  the  Grezera  Shava,  served 
only  to  demonstrate  the  weakness  of  the  theory  of  basing  ar- 
guments upon  an  analogy  of  expressions.  It  having  been 
found  that  such  arguments  easily  run  into  vague  fallacies,  this 
whole  theory  seems  to  have  been  slighted  by  many.  That  such 
must  have  been  actually  the  case  is  evident  from  the  repeated 
admonitions  which  several  prominent  teachers  addressed  to 
their  contemporaries:  '-Do  not  look  slightingly  upon  arguments 
from  the  analogy  of  Gezera  Shava,  since  very  important  in- 
junctions of  the  traditional  law  can  derive  their  Scriptural  au- 
thority in  no  other   way  than  by  means  of  such   an  analogy."' 

But  as  an  arbitrary  application  of  the  analogy  of  Gezera 
Shava  could  easily  lead  to  misuse,  it  was  found  necessary  to 
subject  it  to  some  restrictions.  This  was  done  by  the  following 
rules  : 

1.  The  identical  expression  occurring  in  two  different  laws 
must  at  least  in  ©neof  thembepiiSlID  "empty,"  that  is,  seemingly 
superfluous,  or  pleonastic,  and  not  already  engaged  for  another 
deduction  of  the  traditional  interpretation,  to  enable  it  to  be 
used  for  an  analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  Thus,  for  instance,  inDeut. 
xxiii.  3,  the  law  provides  that  a  bastard  "shall  not  enter  into 
the  congregation  of  the  Loi'd,  e^'cn  to  the  tenth  generation^  Im- 
mediately after  this  law  follows  another,  with  a  similar  provis- 
ion, in  regard  to  an  Ammonite  or  Moabite:  "-^ Even  to  the  tenth 
generation  they  shall  not  enter  into  the  congregation'  of  the 
Lord  for  ever.'''  The  identical  expression  in  both  cases  are  the 
characteristic  words,  "even  to  the  tenth  generation."  But  in 
the  second  case  this  expression  seems  to  l)o  somewhat  superflu- 
ous, or  "empty,"  since  the  emphatic   words    "for  ever"   which 

"131  yyV2  rhp  Tm  HTW  "Tin  bt<  oSiy^  Talmud  Klierithoth,  6rt.  This 
admonition  is  there   repeated  in  the  nam*"  of  four  different  teachers. 


The  Analogy  of  Gezera  Skava.  151 

are  added  here  exclude  even  the  latest  generations  of  an  Am- 
monite or  Moabitc  from  the  congregation.  The  expression  is 
then  assumed  to  have  been  used  here  for  the  purpose  of  inti- 
mating an  analogy  of  Gezera  Shava.  As  the  plirase,  "even  to 
the  tenth  generation,"  is  here  clearly  defined  to  mean/cr  ever 
or  tlie  latest  generations  {ten  being  a  round  number  taken  to 
signify  i^erfection  and  completeness),  so  the  identical  expres- 
sion in  the  former  law  must  be  likewise  taken  in  this  sense — 
a  bastard  and  his  descendants  are  for  eve.^  disqualified  from 
entering  the  community  of  Israel.' 

Siphre  to  Deut.,  section  259;  compare  also  Talmud  Jeba- 
moth,  78b.  An  other  example  is  found  in  Tal.  Chagiga  9a. 

A  Gezera  Shava  in  this  case  is  termed  inS  Ti'd  nJDlD 
''empty  on  one  side,"  and  is  regarded  admissible,  but  may  still 
be  rejected  for  certain  reasons.  Only  when  the  identical  ex- 
l)ression  is  found  to  be  superfluous  in  both  laws  under  consi- 
deration, i''-nx  '^y^'O  n:D1D,  is  the  analogy  regarded  as  irrejec- 
table.  But  if  no  pleonasm  is  recognizable  in  either  of  the  two 
passages  of  the  law,  no  analogy  can  l)e  formed  between  them 
because  of  an  identical  expression  occuring  in  each  of  them. 
Baba  Kama  25b;  Jebamoth  70a;  Nidda  22b;  Sabbath  131a.  ' 

2.  The  second  restrictive  rule  is  less  artificial  and  answers 
the  i)urpose  better  than  the  former.  It  is  this:  ^"i  jT  mx  |''fc< 
Ilii'^D  (Pesachim  t)6;  Nidda  19b)  "No  one  is  permitted  to 
reason  from  a  Gezera  Shava  of  his  own."  While  the  applica- 
tion of  the  logical  inferences  of  Kal  Vechomer  could  be  left  to 
the  discretion  of  the    teachers  of  the  law,  the  use  of  the  un- 


•That  is,  according  to  Rabbinical  interpretation,  they  are  not  per 
mitted  to  intermarry  with  Israelites. 

^The  Talmud  further  makes  many  nice  distinctions  in  regard  to 
this  n;L1D,  which  however,  are  too  intricate  and  subtle  to  be  treated 
here.  Those  who  take  an  interest  in  the  derails  of  this  subject  will 
consult  with  advantage  Dr.  H.  S.  Hirsclifeld  :  Halachische  Exegese 
p.   462-467. 


152  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud, 

certain  conclusions  from  an  analogy  ot  expression  had  neces- 
sarily to  be  restrained.  Such  an  analogy  must  be  sustained  by 
the  authority  of  tradition  in  order  to  be  valid  and  conclusive, 
or  as  a  post-Talmudic  addition  to  this  rule  explains:  "One  must 
have  received  the  analogy  from  liis  teacher,  and  the  teacher 
from  his  teachers,  up  to  the  time  of  the  highest  legislative 
authority." 

This  rule,  however,  hardly  meant  to  say,  as  many  interpreters 
understand  it,  that  either  the  special  application  of  a  Gezera 
Shava  in  a  certain  case  must  have  been  handed  down,  or  the 
identical  exju-ession  on  which  the  analogy  is  based  must  have 
l)een  pointed  out  by  tradition.  If  so,  it  is  difficult  to  perceive 
how  so  many  controversies  could  have  been  raised  in  the  Tal- 
mud in  which  analogies  of  Gezera  Shava  arc  set  forth  and 
disputed,  or  withdrawn  and  replaced  by  others. 

The  true  meaning  of  that  rule  seems  rather  to  be  that  no 
new  laws  are  to  be  deduced  from  Scripture  by  means  of  a 
Gezera  Shava,  out  that  such  analogies  could  be  only  a])- 
p lied  for  the  purpose  of  offering  a  biblical  support  to  a  law 
wliich  already  had  the  sanction  of  tradition.  Such  a  support 
might  ])c  found  in  one  way  or  another,  and  hence  arose  the 
difl'crencc  of  opinion  in  regard  to  some  analogies.' 

B.      H  K  r  K  K  S  II. 

VIII.   'IKK.M   AM)  TIlKum'. 

^  ;:o. 

Tlicro  is  anotlici-  kind  (tf  analogy,  somewhat  similar  to 
Gozora  Siiava,  which,  thougli  not  expressly  mentioned  among 
the  thirteen  rules  of  R.  Isliniacl,  was  generally  adopted  and 
very  frequently  applied  in  llic 'ralniiidic  iidcrpri-tal  ion  of  the 
law;   itistcnned  Hcckesli. 

The  word  ii?p\-,  derived  tVoni  t  lie  vcrl) '^•rfn,  to  compare, 
means  originally  a  lomparisov,  ;in  (i}uilo::,\\  in  which  general 
sense  it  also  occurs;  ^  but  in  the  Talinudic  terminology  it 
usually      denotes     a     pafticular     kind    of      analogy,     based 

'Compare  Franks]  :  "Urbor  palaestinischc  iind  AU',\aii<lrinische 
Srhriftforslinn^  p,    16,    Nolo  « and  p.  20. 

'For  instance,  Talmud    Jcruslialini  Pesacliiin  vi.  1. 


The  Analogy  op  Heckesh.  153 

on  the  close  connection  of  two  subjects  in  one  and  tlic  same 
passage  of  the  Law. 

The  theory  of  this  peculiar  analogy  is  that  where  two 
subjects  are  connected  in  the  law  by  a  common  predicate,  the 
same  provisions  otherwise  made  in  regard  to  one  of  them  are 
under  certain  circumstances  applicable  also  to  the  other. 

Within  certain  limits  this  theory  is  not  inconsistent  with 
logical  reasoning,  since  the  connection  of  two  subjects  by  a 
common  predicate  indicates  that  they  in  some  respects  have  a 
relation  to  each  other.  In  modern  rules  of  legal  interpreta- 
tion also  is  a  maxim:  "Coupling  words  together  shows  that 
they  ought  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense. "i  But  in 
their  endeavor  to  provide  every  traditional  law  with  a  Biblical 
support,  the  rabbis  sometimes  carried  also  this  theory  beyond 
its  legitimate  limits  and  beyond  the  natural  scope  of  the 
written  law. 

IX.    ILLUSTRATIONS. 
§    31. 
The  following  examples  will  illusti-ate  the  different    nujdes 
in  which  the  theory  of  Heckesh  is  applied; 

a.  According  to  the  traditional  law,  women  are  exempted 
from  the  performance  of  all  periodical  rites  and  religious  duties 
incumbent  on  male  Israelites.  In  regard  to  prohibitory  com- 
mandments, however,  no  difference  is  made  l)etwecn  man  and 
woman.  Her  obligation  in  this  respect  is  derived  by  the  analo- 
gy of  Heckesli  from  llic  words  of  Scripture  (Numbers  v.  6). 
"When  Vl  )nan  or  woinau  shall  commit  any  sin,"  etc.,  in  which 
passage  women  arc  ])]ace(l  in  one  category  with  men  in  regard 
to  a  trespass  against  the  hiw. 

Kiddushin    35a. 

b.  Among  other  rules  and  regulations  concerning  civil 
and  criminal  courts,  the  traditional  law  provides  that  the  ses- 
sions of  a  court  must  be   opened  in  day  time  only;    and  further, 


'Copulatio  verbon^m  iiidicat  acceptionem  in  eodeiu  sensu.   Bacon, 
Max.  Reg.    3;    Broom,  Max.  3d,  Lend,  edition,  523. 


154  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

that  blindness  disables  a  man  from  acting  as  one  of  the  judges. 
The  reason  for  these  two  provisions  is  obvious  enough.  But  their 
Biblical  support  is  ofl'ered  by  R.  JSIeir  in  the  following  more  in- 
genious than  natural  deduction.  He  says:  The  Law,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  judicial  functions  of  certain  priestly  courts,  enjoins 
that  ''by  their  word  shall  every  controversy  and  every  injury 
be  decided"  y^a  ^31  i"*"!  '?3  n^n"'  (Deuteronomy  xxi.  5). 
"Controversy"  refers  to  civil  litigations,  and  "injury"  refers  to 
the  plague  of  leprosy  (which  in  Leviticus  xiii.  3,  is  termed  y^j 
and  was  to  be  investigated  by  the  priest).  Both  kinds  of  cases 
being  connected  in  this  law,  they  must  be  analogous  to  each 
other  also  in  regard  to  their  investigation.  As  the  blind  would 
not  be  the  proper  man,  and  night  not  the  proper  time  for  the 
investigation  of  a  case  of  leprosy  (Leviticus  xiii.  6),  so  ought 
day  to  be  the  proper  time  for  the  trial  of  any  case  of  litigation, 
and  the  blind  not  be  admitted  to  judge  such  a  case. 

n^y::^  Q^^n  tr^^pc 

8anhederin  o4,  b. 
e.  The  traditional  permission  to  cut  off  the  sheaf  of  the 
first  fruits  for  the  juiri)osc  of  the  wave  otfering  on  the  16th  day 
of  Nissan,  even  if  that  day  tiap[)oned  to  be  on  a  Sabbath,  is 
based  by  R.  Ishmael  on  the  following  passage  (Exodus  xxxiv. 
'^1),  mairri  1''^p2T  tr^in;  "in  thetime  of//W(i,'-///>/i,'-andrr«//«i,' 
thou  shalt  rest  on  the  seventh  day."  I'loughing  is  under  all 
circumstances  an  optional  (private)  act,  since  it  is  nowhere 
commanded  to  be  done  for  a  religious  ])urpose.  Hence,  also 
the  prohibition  of  reaping  on  a  Sabbath  day  refers  only  to  the 
optional  reaping  for  private  pur|)os(^s,  l)ut  not  where  it  is  to  be 
done  in  fuitiUment  of  a  religious  duty: 

nixD  s^ni:'  nDiyn  T:;p  «:»•' 

Mishna  Shebiith  I.  4.  Menachoth  72. 

X.     HEf:KESH   FROM   PREDICATES. 
§    32. 

The  analogy  of  Ilcckcsh  is  also  nia(h'  IVoin    two  predicates 


The  Analogy  of  Heckesh.  155 

belonging  to  cue  subject.  J u  this  case,  the  verbs  constituting 
the  common  predicate  are  treated  as  verbal  nouns.  Such  a 
Heckesh  is,  for  instance,  applied  to  prove  that  a  wile  may  be 
taken  in  matrimony  by  means  of  a  written  contract  of  marriage 
whicli  is  handed  to  her.  The  law  (Deuteronomy  xxiv.  2),  in 
speaking  of  a  case  where  a  divorced  woman  contracts  a  second 
marriage,  uses  the  words:  nn^m  nsik'^l  "when  she  has  ^^^/d- /-/<?(/ 
out  of  his  house  she  may  become  another  man's  wife."  As  the 
Jeparlbhr  out  of  his  house  (divorce)  is  by  means  of  a  written 
document  (bill  of  divorcement),  so,  also,  the  becojuing  a  wife 
may  be  effected  by  means  of  a  document  written  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

Talmud  Kiddushin  5.     As  to  other  examples  compare  B. 
Kamma,    Tl^?,,    and  Chagiga,  4<^. 

XI.   HECKESH      IRREFUTABLE. 


Arguments  from  Heckesh  are,  in  general, regarded  as  being 
more  conclusive  than  those  from  Gezera  Shava,  the  latter 
admitting  of  a  refutation,  but  not  the  former.'  But  as 
Gezera  Shava,  so  also  Heckesh  could  be  applied  only  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  a  traditional  law. 


'  K'p'nn  ^y  yy^r^  pX  Menachoth  82/);  Baba  Kamma  106b.  Con- 
cerning the  prevalence  of  one  or  the  other  of  tliese  two  kinds  of 
analogy  in  cases  where  they  seem  to  be  in  conflict  with  each 
other,  compare  the  divergence  of  opinions  in  Gittin  41,  andZebachim48. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  GENERALIZATION  OF  SPECIAL  LAWS. 
Rule  iir,  Binyan  Ab. 
I.     Theory  axd  Term. 
§  34. 

It  is  ail  established  principle  of  modern  interpretation  of 
laws:  "When  the  law  is  special,  but  its  reason  general,  the  law 
is  to  be  understood  generally"'.  This  principle  is  also  applied 
in  the  rabbinical  legal  interpretation,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 
following  example:  In  Deut.  xxiv,  6,  the  law  provides  ''No 
man  shall  take  the  mill  or  the  upper  millstone  as  pledge:  lor 
he  taketh  a  man's  life  to  pledge."  This  law  is  special,  prohib- 
iting certain  specified  utensils,  the  hand-mill  and  the  mill-stones, 
to  be  taken  as  pledges. 

The  reason,  however,  which  tlie  law  expressly  assigns  to 
this  prohibition  is  general;  by  taking  away  from  the  poor  debtor 
these  utensils,  so  essential  for  daily  domestic  use,  you  are 
depriving  his  family  of  the  means  of  preparing  their  food.  Hence 
the  Rabbis  feel  justified  in  generalizing  this  law,  so  that  "Every- 
thing which  is  used  for  preparing  food  is  forbidden  to  be  taken 
as  pledge."^  In  a  similar  way  the  special  law:  "Thou  shalt 
not  plow  willi  an  ox  and  an  ass  together"  (Dcut.  xxii,  10)  is 
generalized  l)y  the  Habl)is  so  as  to  ecpially  prohibit  the  yoking 
together  of  any  two  other  animals  of  diflerent  species  and 
strength.  Ox  and  ass  ai-e  hvvc  niciitiontMl  especially  as  being 
those  animals  ordinarily  employed  in  agriculture.  And  not 
only  in  plowing,  but  also  for  any  other  purpose  it  is  prohibited 
to  yoke  such  different  animals  Logo!  her.'  From  the  quite  ra- 
tional principle  just  illustrated,  devcloi>cd  t  he  Rabbinical  rule  of 


'Qiiando  Ipx  Rpecialis.  ratio  aiitem  goneralia,  generaliter  lex  est 
intelligenda. 

'Kin  L"D3  '-D  ItDKJK'  K^'DJ  ^31K  U  pB'iyK'  "I^T  ^2  N^XIsb^  3D11  D'H'T  nS 
l^^in.  Miflhna  B.   l^Ictzia  ix.   KJ. 

'See  Siphrp  W  131;    (-ompaif  also  Mislma  Klulayim  viii.  2. 


The  Generalization  of  special  Laws.  157 

generalizing  special  laws.  According  to  the  theory  of  this  rule  it 
is  not  even  necessary  to  investigate  whether  the  reason  of  a 
certain  law  is  general  or  not,  but  any  special  law  found  in  the 
Mosaic  legislation  is  assumed  to  be  applicable  to  all  similar  or 
analogous  cases.  Only  where  Scripture,  in  some  of  those  ways 
which  are  defined  by  the  Rabbis,  indicates  that  the  law  in  ques- 
tion is  provided  exclusively  for  the  particular  case  mentioned 
therein,  it  is  not  applicable  to  similar  cases.  But  otherwise, 
the  provisions  of  the  law  are  to  be  taken  in  a  comprehensive 
and  general  sense,  and  the  particular  case  expressly  mentioned 
is  to  be  regarded  only  as  an  illustrative  example  for  its  ap- 
plication.* 

This  theory  is  termed  Binyan  Ab  (3S  |''J3),  the  construc- 
tion of  a  leading,  rule  i.  e.  the  Gefwra/ization  of  a  special  law.' 

iL  Method  of  generalizing  a  law. 
§   35. 

In  Generalizing  a  special  law  so  as  to  make  it  applicable 
to  other  cases,  the  Rabbis  apply  the  following  method: 

Tliey  try  to  point  out  in  the  special  case  some  character- 
isti(;  peculiarities  which  taken  together  are  the  probable  reason 
for  the  provision  made  by  the  law  for  this  case.  Any  other  case 
having  the  same  peculiarities  is  reguardedas  an  analogous  case, 
subject  to  the  same  provision  of  the  law. 

The  formula  of  this  method  is  usually: 

.(12  s:ii^3)  ...^2  CIS  ...ty  nm^D  (^ji^s  n^i)  na 

'A  somewhat  similar  view  is  expressed  by  a  modern  law  writer, 
the  celebrated  Frenchman  Toullier  in  his  Le  Droit  Civil  Francais 
snivant  Vurdre  da  Code,  liv  3.  t.  I.  c.  1.  "It  is  analogy  which  induces 
us,  with  reason,  to  suppose  that,  following  the  example  of  the  Cre- 
ator of  the  Universe,  the  lawgiver  has  established  general  and  u- 
niform  laws,  which  it  is  unnecessary    to  repeat  in  all  analogus  cases.*' 

^  In  the  application  of  this  theory  sometimes  the  phrase  is  used: 
3X  ni3  nr  "this  (special  case)  establishes  the  general  rule  or  law",  f. 
ex.  Sanhederin  30a;  B.  Kamma  77b.  Sota  2b.  In  this  phrase,  the  word 
3K  meaning  father,  chief,  ruler  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  principal  or 
general  rule  (compare  the  terms  niDsboniDNr  ppMJnUK).  Hence  2K  IMl 
to  build  or  construct  a  general  rule,  and  3X  PJ3  the  construction  of  a 
general  rule,  the  genei-aliz.it'on    of   a  special  law. 


158  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

"As  A  (the  case  mentioned  in  the  law)  being  characterized 
by  (that  and  that  certain  pecularity)  is  subject  here  to  a  cer- 
tain  provision,  so  any  case  similar  to  it  (by  having  the  same 
pecularities),  is  subject  to  the  same  provision. 

Where  it  is  to  be  shown  why  the  generalized  law  does  not 
apply  to  a  certain  not  quite  analogous  case,  the    formula    is: 

...«:;''  ...^3  C)«  ...(^:i^s  nai)  -a 

''As  A  (having  those  certain  pecularities)  is  here  subject 
to  that  provision,  so  any  other  case  (similar  to  it  by  having 
the  same  peculiarities).  The  case  of  B  however  is  excepted 
from  that  provision,  because  of  its  not  having  the  same 
peculiarities." 

Illustrations. 
§    36. 

a.  In  Leviticus  chapter  xi  and  Deut.  chap.  xiv.  the  law 
treats  of  clean  and  unclean  animal  food.  Coiicei'uing  the  (piad 
rupeds,  fishes  and  flying  insects,  general  rules  are  given 
pointing  out  certain  criteria  by  which  to  distinguish  between 
the  clean  and  the  unclean.  For  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  fowls,  however,  no  general  rule  is  given,  but  there  is 
merely  a  list  of  nineteen  or  twenty  specified  birds  which 
are  unclean.  To  have  a  general  rule  also  for  this  kind 
of  animals  was  the  more  necessary  as  many  of  the  spe- 
cified fowls  can  not  easily  be  identified.  The  Rabbis  therefore 
tried  to  find  such  a  rule  l)y  generalizing  the  eagle  which 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  specified  list  of  unclean  fowls.  The 
eagle,  they  say,  has  four  peculiarities:  1.  it  has  not  a  "pro- 
longed toe";  2.  it  has  no  crop;  3.  the  mner  coat  of  its  giz- 
zard cannot  easily  be  peeled  ofl  trom  the  Heshy  part:  4.  it 
"strikes"  with  its  claws  the  prey  by  eating  it.  Hence  any 
fowl  resembling  it  in  these  peculiarities,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
unclean.' 

b.  In  Deut.  ch  xix,  the  law  contains  some  i>articulars 
supplementary  to  a  former  law  concerning  the  cities   of  refuge 


^31X1  Dim  ciSpJ  iJ2p-iip  pxi  pen  n-i^n'  yavN  "h  p^t'  nnvo  itrj  no' 

Talmud  CJuillin   Gla.    NOD  13  NV1^3  PD  ?)«  NOO 


The  Generalization  of  spkcial  Laws.  159 

which  were  designed  to  serve  partly  as  a  protection,  partly 
as  a  punishment  and  atonement  for  him  who  unintentionally 
had  committed  a  homicide.  In  this  connection  the  special 
])r()vision  is  made,  that  when  a  man  goes  into  a  forest  with  his 
neighbor  to  hew  wood,  and  the  iron  of  the  axe  slips  out  from 
the  handle  and  accidentally  kills  the  neighbor,  the  slayer  shall 
flee  into  one  of  those  cities. 

This  special  provision  is,  of  course,  generalized  by  the  Rab- 
bis, so  as  to  be  applicable  to  analogous  cases,  e.  g.  if  one  in 
breaking  down  a  wall  kills  a  man  accidentally  by  one  of  its 
falling  stones.  If,  however,  such  an  accident  happened  in 
private  premises,  where  the  man  who  was  killed  had  no 
right  to  enter,  he  who  unintentionally  caused  his  death  is  en- 
tirely acquitted,  without  having  to  flee  to  the  city  of  refuge; 
for  "as  the  forest  mentioned  iu  the  law  is  a  public  place  which 
the  slayer  and  the  slain  man  ecjually  had  a  right  to  enter,  so 
that  law  applies  only  to  accidents  occurring  on  places'  which 
))oth  of  them  were  permitted  to  enter,  but  not  in  private 
premises,  where  the  man  who  was  killed  was  neither  permitted 
nor  expected  to  be.'" 

Remark.  Where  it  is  not  intended  to  raise  a  special  provision  to  a 
general  law  applicable  to  all  similar  cases,  but  merely  to  draw  from 
it  an  analogy  for  one  single  similar  case,  there  the  method  is  termed 
lyVD  no  (abbrev.  0"0),  from  the  pharase  by  whicli  such  an  analogy  is 
usually  introduced;  .  .  .  IJ^VO  HD  "as  we  find  concerning  ...  so  here"; 
e.  g.    Yeb^motii   7b:   nS  flB'NO  D"0  Nedarim  4b:  omJC  CO- 

Incorrectly  the  t3''0  is  sometimes  termed  3K  pj^,  as  in  Menachoth 
76a;  y'n3  ^n'2nO  X"3;   see  Rashi  's  commentary  on  that  passage. 

III.    (xENKRAT.lZATION    OF    TWO    SPECIAL    PROVISIONS. 

§   37. 

In  the  instances  of  Binyan  Ab  mentioned  above,  the 
general  law  is  drawn  merely  from  one  special  provision.  Such 
generalization  is  qualified  as  inS  2171312  3J<  ]''J2  "a  general 
law  drawn  from  one  passage  (or  provision)."  But  sometimes 
it  IS  formed  by  a  combination  of  two  special  provisions  found 
either  in  one  and  the  same  passage  or  in  two  different  passages 
of  Scripture.   In  this  case  it   is  termed  D"'3iri3   '•ili'D   X"3    "a 


'     Mishna  Maccoth  II,   8.    e^K   Qt^S    DJa"-^  p''I)obl    prj!?  JTlKn  lyn  HO 

DJD^      ^7  niB'1  pNtr  rcan  ^ya  nvn  xx"  db'^  DJD^b  P'To^i  W^  nicn  b 


160  Hermeneutics  of  the  TaT.MLU). 

general  rule  drawn  from  two  provisions'"  It  makes  no  es- 
sential difference  whether  the  two  provisions  are  found  in  the 
same  or  in  different  passages,  as  the  same  method  is  applied 
in  either  case. 

The  method  of  generalizing  two  special  provisions,  so  as 
to  make  of  them  one  general  law,  is  indicated  by  the  formula 
always  used  for  this  purpose.     It  is: 

"Behold,  this  case  is  not  hke  the  other,  and  the  other  not 
like  this;  the  common  peculiarity  is...."  That  is  to  say,first  a  dif- 
ference between  the  two  special  provisions  is  stated,  and  then 
again  those  points  are  set  forth  which  are  common  to  both 
of  them,  and  which  form  their  characteristic  peculiarity.  Any 
other  casc^  having  the  same  peculiarity  is  then  subject  to  the 
same  law. 

Remark.  Tlie  reason  wliy  a  ditfei-ence  of  the  two  special  provisions 
has  first  to  be  demonstrated  before  generalizing  them,  is  explained  in 
the  following  way: 

It  is  a  Talmudic  rule  of  interpretation  that  nriND  D'X3n  D'3WD  'iB' 
ino^OTN  "wlierever  two  provisions  of  tlie  law  are  found  in  Scripture 
A\  hich  are  so  indentical  tliat  one  of  them  is  seemingly  superfluous,  as 
it  miglit  as  well  have  been  derived  from  the  other  by  way  of  an  ana- 
logy, then  no  further  deduction  from  either  of  tliem  can  be  admitted" 
(Kiddusliin  24a  and  elsewhere).  In  making  a  Binyan  Ab  by  a  <ombina- 
tion  of  two  special  provsions  it  is  therefore  necessary  first  to  sliow  that 
they  are  not  so  identical  as  to  be  regarded  asnnS2  D'SDH  D'DIDD  'JL*',hiit 
tViat  they  really  do  differ  in  some  points. 


'  This  delinition  is  acccu-ding  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Abraham  b. 
David  (Rabed)  in  his  exposition  of  the  herraeneuti<;  rules.  Some  com- 
mentators, however,  call  tlie  generalization  of  one  special  provision  of 
a  law  :  IJ'^'O  riD  ;  the  generalization  of  two  provisions  if  found  in  one 
passage:  TnX  3in30  ti"2t  Ji-'id  if  found  in  two  different  i)assages  of 
Scripture:  Q^aina  ''J^i'O  H"2. 


The  Generalization  of  Rpecial  Laws.  1  <jl 

Illustration  of  (!enerat>i/in(;  two  special  provisions. 

§  38. 

In  Exoilns  XXI,  20  and  27,  the  law  provides,  tlint  "if  a 
man  smite  the  eye  of  liis  servant  and  destroy  it,  he  shall  let  him 
go  free  for  his  eye's  sake.  And  if  he  smite  out  his  servant's 
toothy   he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  tooth's  sake." 

Hen;  two  provisions  are  made,  one  concerning  the  eye  and 
one  concerning  the  tooth  of  the  servant.  Though  ditfercnt  in 
their  nature,  eye  and  tooth  have  that  in  common  that  tliey  are 
essential  parts  of  the  human  body  and  the  loss  of  them  cannot 
be  restored.  Hence  the  Rabbis  draw  from  these  two  ])i-ovisions 
the  general  law  that  the  mutilation  of  any  memb:'r  of  the  ser- 
vant's body  in  conseipience  of  brutal  treatment  on  the  part  of  the 
mastei',  causes  the  immediate  manumission  ol'tiiat  slave.'* 

IV.  Generalizing;  several  special  provisions. 
§39. 

There  are  some  instances  where  a  Binyan  Ab  is  formed  by 
a  combination  of  three  or  even  four  different  special  jn-ovisions. 
The  method  of  operation  in  such  cases  is  just  the  same  as  in  the 
case  of  generalizing  two  provisions. 

An  example  of  a  combination  of  four  different  provisions 
for  the  purpose  of  forming  one  general  rule  is  furnished  in  the 
first  Mishna  of  Baba  Kamnia.  There,  reference  is  made  to 
four  principal  damages  provided  for  in  the  law:  1)  the  damage 
caused  by  ^  goring  beast  (Exod.  XXI,  28.  35.  36.);  2)  the  dam- 
age caused  by  an  uncovered  pit  (Exod.  XXI,  33.  34.)  3)  the 
damage  caused  by  depasturing  foreign  fields  (Exod.  xxii.  4)  and 
4)  damage  caused  by  unguarded  fire  (ibid,  vei-se  5.). 

Of  these  four  provisions  the  general  law  is  formed  that  a 
man  is  responsible  and  has  to  make  restitution  for  any   damage 


limb  rbn'  pKK'  Dnax  ':;'.<-)  ^d  qx  nirnS  r^n^  r**^'  onax  ^cj'Nt 

Meehilta  Mishpatiiu  P.  ix:  ef.  also  Talmud  Kidd.  24a. 


162  Heemeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

caused  by  his  neglect  to  guard  that  property   which  is  un<ler 
his  care  and  liable  to  do  damage. ' 

V.    Recapitulation. 

§40. 

Briefly  recapitulating  this  whole  chapter  on  Generaliza 
tion,we  shall  find  that  according  to  the  Talmudical  view  every 
provision  of  the  Mosaic  law  is,  as  far  as  possible,  to  be  taken 
as  a  general  law,  applicable  to  all  analogous  cases.  A  plain 
application  of  a  special  provision  to  one  analogous  case  is  termed 
1J''XD  HD.  The  generalization  of  special  provisions,  so  as  to 
make  them  applicable  to  all  analogous  cases  is  termed  2ii  '{^12 
the  construction  of  a  general  rule.  If  such  a  general  rule  is 
derived  merely  from  one  special  provision,  it  is  termed  Zii  ^^2 
nns  3in3D.  A  general  rule  formed  by  a  combination  of  two 
(or  more)  special  provisions  which,  though  different,  have  some 
characteristic  points  in  common,  is  termed  D''2in2  "'^t^D  3K  ]'^i2. 
These  common  characteristics  are  termed  rniTn  IXH. 


c"C'  nil  HT  xbi  "iiK'n  nnD  nyao  nn  n^i  nyaon  nna  -iicn  nn  nh  ' 
"inn  n.-iD  p-'inbi  ib'b  piiK*  nn  nr  ^bi  D"n  mi  m  pnk'  t'xn  nna  D"n  nn  pa 
']bv  im-'OKn  p'^nb  ]:i-\ii:f  jnac^  nit^n  nxn  pvn^i  i^'b  mn  pwy 

Examples  of  Binyan  Ab  formed  of  three  provisions  are  found  in 
Sanhedrin  66,a;  Maccoth  4b;  ChuUin  65b. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GENERAL  AND  THE  PARTICULAR. 

Introductory. 
§41. 

In  order  to  miderstand  the  difl'erent  hermeneutic  rules  un- 
der this  heading,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  clear  conception  oC 
the  meaning  of  the  two  talmudical  terms  lans  and  hb^- 

hb2  means  the  General^  that  whicli  comprehends  a  class  oC 
olijects;  that  which  is  appli(*able  to  a  number  of  things  agree- 
ing in  a  certain  point  in  common. 

I3"l2  means  the  Particular  or  the  Special,  that  which  siVi- 
gles  out  an  individual  from  among  a  number  or  class. 

Hence,  any  general  term  or  any  noun  with  the  adjective 
^3  "air'  "whatsoever",  is  regarded  as  bh'Z'i  while  any  term  de- 
noting only  a  single  object  is  taken  as  t2"i£. 

The  law  usually  speaks  either  in  general  or  in  particular 
terms,  as:  "He  that  smiteth  a  man^  so  that  he  die,  shall  be 
puttodeath"  (Ex.  XXI,  12);  "Thou  shalt  not  eat  any  abominable 
thing''  (Deut.  XIV,  3).  In  these  two  cases  thr  terms  are  gener- 
al. But  in  the  law:  "Thou  shalt  not  seethe  the  kid  in  its  mothers 
milk"    (Ex.  XXIII,  19),  the  terms  are  particular.' 

It  is  obvious  that  where  the  law  speaks  in  general  terms 
it  intends  to  refer  to  everything  included  in  those  terms. 
Where,  however,  it  uses  particular  terms,  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  law  will  decide  whether  it  refers  exclusively  to  the  single 
objects  mentioned  and  enumerated  or  also  to  others  of  a  simi- 
lar nature. 

But  it  sometimes  occurs  that  the  law    uses  both  kinds    of 
terms  together,  so  that  either  1)  the  general   is  succeeded  by 


'The  terms  ^^3  and  DID  are  applied  by  the  Rabbis  even  to  verbs.  A 
verb  denoting  an  indefinite  act,  as  to  do,  to  take,  are  regarded  as  773> 
while  a  verb  denoting  a  special  kind  of  act,  as  to  halce,  is  a  DID;  6.  g. 
Kiddushiu  21b.  b^-nnp^i;  Menachoth  S^b:  DID  nDXn  \^,  b?D-nyyn  nS 


1G4  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

particulars,  tansi  hbD,  or  2)  the  particulars  are  succeeded  by  a 
general,  hb^il  t2"iS,  or  3)  one  general  term  preceding  and  another 
succeeding  the  particulars,  ^^31  t:n2i  hho-  In  each  of  these  three 
cases  the  contents  of  either  the  general  or  that  of  the  particu- 
lars are  modified  in  some  way.  These  modifications  are  defined 
by  the  following  three  rules. 

Rule  IY.  General  and  Particular. 
§42. 

///  ^/le  case  of  General  and  Particular^  the  i^eneral  inclinles 
nolliing  but  the  particular. 

'  That  is,  when  a  general  term  is  followed  by  an  enumer- 
ation of  particulars,  the  law  is  assumed  to  refer  exclusively  to 
\{\ii  enuiirerated  ])articulars.  The  particulars  are  then  not  re- 
garded a?  a  mere  illustrating  example  of  the  preceding  general, 
hut  an  indication  that  the  contents  of  the  latter  are  restricted 
solely  to  that  of  the  particulars.' 

The  following  examples  will  illustrate  the  ai)plication  of 
this  rule: 

a.  In  Levit  I,  2.  The  law  defines  the  ollerings  to  be 
l)rought  on  the  altar  by  the  following  words:  ''you  shall  bring 
your  offering  of  the  l>east  (nonzn  jD);  of  the  /lerd  or  of  the 
flock.''''  The  general  term  is  here  '■Hhe  beast  ("^"2)  which 
otherwise  includes  any  kind  of  quadrupeds,  both  wild  and  tame 
(cf.  Deut.  XIV,  4.  5);  butthespccial  terms 'V/^/v/ and //t;r/'"  limit 
the  ofl'ering  to  these  domesticated  animals.  The  law  is  then  to  be 
construed  in  the  following  way:  of  the  l)eas1, viz.  only  ofthehei-d 
and  of  the  flock  you  shall  bring  your  ottering.' 


'Somewhat  analogous  to  this  Riil)V)inical  rule  of  interpretation  is 
the  following  rule  of  construction  of  modern  lawn:  "Where  a  genera] 
enactment  is  followed  by  a  special  enactment  on  the  same  subject,  the 
latter  enactment  overrides  and  controls  the  earlier  one".  See  Broom's 
Legal  Maxims  p.  6')0. 

'■'  rrn  nS  iS  -m^N  'XVI  ip^.   Tal.  Zebachim  34a. 


The  General  AXD  THE  Particular,  165 

b.  In  Deut.  XXII,  11  the  law  reads:  "Thou  shalt  not 
wear  a  mingled  stuff  (Tltayw'),  wool  and  linen  together".  Here 
the  general  term  TitDyty,  meaning  a  mixture  of  different  sorts, 
is  followed  by  the  particulars  ''wool  and  linen  together;"  hence 
the  Rabbis  regard  the  prohibition  of  wearing  a  garment  of  ming- 
led stuff  to  be  restricted  to  a  mixture  of  wool  and  linen.* 

c.  In  Levit.  XVIII,  6  sq.  the  law  on  prohibited  marriages 
begins  with  the  genei-al  terms.  ''None  of  you  shall  approach 
to  any  that  is  near  of  kin  to  him — ".  According  to  this  general 
interdiction  the  internmrriage  with  any  degree  of  relationshi}) 
would  be  prohibited.  But  as  the  general  is  followed  by  a  spe- 
cification of  prohibited  degrees,  the  interdiction  is  to  be  re- 
stricted to  these  specified  degrees.'' 

Rule  V.     Particulars  and  General. 
§  43. 
.  33n  jr^iDi  iDisn  h^  cj^did  ^^3n  -try:  h^Ts  die 

///  the  case  of  Partieulars  and  General^  the  general  term 
adds  to  the  contents  of  the  particulars,  and  ive  include  everything  (be- 
longing to  this  general). 

That  is  to  say,  where  particular  terms  are  followed  by  a 
general  term,  it  is  assumed  that  the  law  refers  to  anything  in- 
cluded in  the  general,  =■  the  particulars  being  regarded  merely 
as  illustrative  examples  of  that  general, 

>  See  Mishna  Khilayim  X,  1,  and  the  commentary  of  Obadiah 
Bertinoro. 

»  Siphra  in  loco:  ^^3-'li1  r<^1  ISC'  ba  Sn  tT'X  C^\S 

oiD— '1J1  10X  nnyi  i^ax  nny 
maaa'  no  k^x  Vp^a  p^i  oidi  bb 

It  is  true,  the  rabbinical  law  adds  some  extensions  to  the  biblical  list 
of  prohibited  degrees,  but  these  extensions  are  not  regarded  as  biblical, 
but  as  nVJEJ*  'secondary  prohibitions'  made  by  the  authority  of  the 
Sopherim.  See  Mielziner  'The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce', 
p.  37. 

'  In  a  somewhat  similar  case,  the  modern  rules  of  construction 
take  just  the  opposite  view,  a'!  may  be  seen  from  the  following  (]Uota- 
t  on  in  Broom's  Legal  Ma.vims  p.   050  :  *lt  is  said  to  be   a  good  rule  of 


166  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

This  rule  is  applied  in  the  following  law  in  Exodus  XXII.  9: 
•'If  a  man  delivereth  to  his  neighbor  an  ass,  or  an  ox, or  a 
sheep,  or  any  beast  to  keep,  and  it  die,  etc." 

Here  the  enumerated  particular  terms  ciss,  ox,  sheep  are 
followed  by  the  general  term  '■'■any  beasf.  Hence  this  law  re- 
fers to  any  kind  of  animal  which  is  delivered  to  be  guarded.' 

Rule  VI.     General,  Particular  and  General. 

§  44. 

A  case  of  one  general  preceding  and  another  following  the 
particular  can,  in  some  respects,  be  regarded  as  an  combina- 
tion of  the  two  former  cases,  namely  of  General  and  Fariicular 
and  of  Particular  and  General,  and  the  rule  for  this  combina- 
tion is,  consequently,  a  kind  of  amalgamation  of  the  two  rules 
given  above  concerning  these  two  cases.  While  in  th<i  case  of 
General  and  Particular  (Rule  IV)  the  general  includes  nothing 
but  the  strict  contents  of  the  particular,  and  in  the  case  of  Par- 
ticular and  General  (Rule  V)  the  contents  of  the  particular  are 
extended  to  the  whole  comprehension  of  the  general,  it  is  held 
that  a  particular  between  two  general  terms  is  to  be  extended 
only  as  far  as  to  include  that  which  is  similar  to  the  contents  of 
this  particular,  or  as  the  rule  is  cxi)rcssed  in  the  talmudic  phra- 
seology: 

construction  thafwhcre  anAct  of  Parliament  l)egin8  witli  words  which 
describe  things  or  persons  of  an  inferior  degree  and  conchides  with 
general  words,  the  general  words  shall  not  be  extended  to  any  thing 
or  person  of  a  higher  degree",  that  is  to  say,  where  a  particular  class 
[of  persons  or  things]  is  spoken  of,  and  general  words  follow,  the 
class  first  mentioned  is  to  be  taken  as  the  most  comprehensive,  and  the 
general  words  treated  as  referring  to  matters  ejusdem  generis  with 
such  class,  the  effect  of  general  words  when  they  follow  particular 
words  being  thus  restricted'. 

'  Mechilta  on  this  passage  : 

HK'  IN  -lion  IS    "1ir    K^X  "'S  PN 

i^^33  ban  Disn  Sy  ^myi?  bban  batr 


The  General  and  the  Particular.  16Y 

In  a  case  of  General^  Particular  and  General^  do  include  only 
that  which  resembles  the  particular. 

An  example  illustrating  the  application  of  this  rule  is  fur- 
nished in  Ex.  XXII,  8,  where  the  law  is  laid  down  that  in  all 
cases  when  a  person  has  been  found  guilty  of  having  embezzl- 
ed property,  that  person  shall  pay  the  double  amount  of  the  em- 
bezzlement. This  law  is  introduced  by  the  words:  'Tor  any  mat- 
ter of  trespass  (General),  for  ox;  for  ass,  for  sheep,  for  raiment 
(Particulars),  for  anything  lost  (General)...  he  shall  pay  double 
to  his  neighbor." 

Applying  the  rule  of  General,  Particular  and  General,  the 
Rabbinical  interpretation  of  this  law  is  to  the  etfect  that  the; 
restitution  of  the  twofold  value  is  to  be  made  only  for  such  em 
bezzled  property  which  resembles  the  particular  (the  specified 
objects:  ox,  ass,  sheep,  raiment)  in  this  that  it  is  movable  pro- 
perty, and  that  it  is  an  object  of  intrinsic  value.  Hence  the  fine 
of  double  payment  for  the  embezzled  property  does  not  apply 
where  it  concerns  real  estate  which  is  not  movable,  and  neither 
where  it  concerns  bills  or  notes  which  have  no  intrinsic  but 
only  a  representative  value.' 

Remark  1.  In  regard  to  the  limitation  of  ''that  which  res- 
embles the  particulars"  (tDISn  j'^J?^),  the  Talmud  expresses  two 
opinions  which  differ  from  each  other  slightly. 

According  to  one  opinion  it  is  assumed  that  in  a  connection 
of  General^  Particular  and  General  XpH  SDp  S^'?!'  '"the  first 
general  is  prevailing  and  deciding,"  so  that  such  a  connection 
is  to  be  treated  mainly  in  accordance  with  the  rule  for  ta*l£"l  hh'2 
viz.  that  the  general  comprises  nothing  but  the  strict  contents 
of  the  particular.  These  contents  are,  however,  in  our  case 
modified  by  the  succeeding  general,  so  that  it  now  comprises 
'  Baba  Kamma  62  b:  S^3  —  j;jj>q   -i3t    ^3  ^y 

DID  —  HD^K'  ^yi  nt^  ^y  iion  hv  iik'  ^y 

^^31  irn  —  mns  ^d  by 

)i!DD  leiji  !^Dbt3on  -i3n  tJ'iiQO  Li-isn  nn 

poo  1D1J1  ^D^Don  -im  ^3  fix 

pbioboD  irKL*'  niyp-ip  ix^*' 

Other  examples  are  furnished  in  Nazir  35  b ;  Shebvioth  4  b  ;  4H  a. 


168  Hermexeltics  of  the  Taj.mud. 

anything    wliicli  resembles    tlu'   particular,  at   least,   in    three 
points   (p-i-  -rryT'i). 

But  the  other  opinion  assumes  that  in  a  connection  of  Ge- 
neral, Particular  and  General  SpH  Siri2  S^'73  "'the  last  gener- 
al is  prevailing  and  deciding".  Hence,  such  <a  connection  is  to 
be  treated  rather  in  accordance  with  the  rule  for  '?'?3l  ais,  so 
that  the  contents  of  the  particular  are  extended  to  everything 
comprised  in  the  general.  This  extension  is,  however,  in  our 
case  moditied  by  the  tirst  general  in  as  hir  as  it  excludes  that 
which  resembles  the  particular  only  in  one  point  (iriN  Ti), 
while  anything  resembling  it  in  more  than  one  point  (^^^'2 
("'T'^)  is  included.  See  Tabu.  Erubin  28a;  compare  also  Rashi 
on  ChuUin  65b  sub  vocen"21. 

Remark  2.  Two  general  terms  either  preceded  or  followed  by  a 
particular  are,  according  to  some  auihorithies,  also  treated  as  a  case 
of  (jieaeral,  Particular  and  General  : 

^^31  D1D1  b^3a  pm  in^ra  o-id  ^C3n 

Chullin  66  b  ;  B.   Kamma  64  b. 
Remark  3.  The   rule  of  General  and  Particular  applies  only  when 
both   are  found  in  one  and  the  same  passage  of  the  law,    but  not 
when   in   different  |>assages  : 

uiDi  Sbsn  jre'n  xb  nxo  nr  pprnion  onai  'i^i    ■ 

B.  Kamma  So  a;  Meuachoth  55  h. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MODIFICATIONS  OB^  THE  RULES  OF  GENERAL 
AND  PARTICULAR. 

The  Rules  VII-XI  contain  five  ditferent  modifications  of 
the  preceding  rules  concerning  the  General  and  Particular. 

First  Modification.    Rule  YII. 

§   45 

^^3^  7-1:?  sinty  ujisi  tDis^  7-1::  8in*^'  ^^3 

There  is  a  general  that  requires  the  Particular^  and  a  Par  lieu- 
lar  that  requires  the  General. 

That  is  to  say,  the  preceding  rules  of  General  and  Particu- 
lar do  not  ai)ply  to  cases  where  either  the  general  needs  the 
:-iipi)lemeutof  the  particular,  or  where  the  particular  necessari- 
ly  requires  the  SMpplemeut  of  the  general  in  order  to  express 
a.  full  and  clear  meaning.  For,  an  ambiguous  general  term 
cannot  be  treated  as  a  general;  neitlier  can  an  indefinite  special 
term  be  regarded  as  a  particular. 

Thus,  in  Leviticus  XVlI,lo  the  law  enjoins  that  he  who 
taketh  in  hunting  any  beast  or  fowl  that  may  be  eaten,  shall 
{)our  out  the  blood  thereof  1Sj;2  1(1031   '•'•and cover  itivith  dusf. 

In  this  passage  the  word  inODI  might  have  been  taken 
as  a  general  expression,  since  there  are  various  ways  of  cover- 
ing a  thing;  "iSyD  again  is  a  particular  term,  and  according  to 
the  rule  of  Klal  u-Phrat  (Rule  IV)  the  interpretation  of  this 
law  would  be,  that  the  blood  must  be  covered  with  dust  and 
with  nothing  else. 

But  the  general  expression  riDD  is  ambiguous,  as  it  admits 
of  different  meanings;  it  means  as  well  to  cover  (i.  e.  to  overlay, 
to  envelop),  as  also  to  hide  (to  conceal,  to  withdraw  from  the 
sight).  Without  the  addition  of  nsyn  we  might  suppose  that 
the  law  only  intended  to  enjoin  that  such  l)lood  oe  put  out  of 
sight   or  concealed  in  a  closed   vessel.     Hence  the  expression 


170  Hermenedtics  of  the  Talmud. 

iriD31  is  '-'a  General  that   requires  the  Particular",  to   express 
tliat  the  meaning  is  to  overlay  it  witli  something. 

Consequently  the  rule  of  K'lal  u-Phrat  cannot  be  applied 
here,  and  the  term  "isy*  is  not  necessarily  to  be  taken  in  its 
strictest  sense,  but  may  be  extended  so  as  to  include  anything 
resembling  the  dust.' 

The  same  passage  can  also  serve  to  illustrate  the  second 
part  of  our  rule.  The  special  term  isy^  without  tlie  general 
expression  inD31  would  have  been  quite  meaningless,  as  no 
verb  would  be  there  indicating  what  to  do  with  the  dust. 
Hence  it  is  "a  Particular  that  requires  the  supplement  of  the 
General",  Another,  somewhat  intricate,  example  in  Talmud 
Bechoroth  19  a. 

Second  Modification.   Rule  VIII. 
§46. 

iM  bb^n  p  KS^T  ^^32  n*r\'^  nan  b^ 
.Kr  1^3  bb:in  bv  ts^^  «^n  s^f  \D'£y  bv  no^'?  s*? 

When  a  single  case,  though  aUeady  included  in  a  general  hni\ 
is  expressly  mentioned^  then  the  provision  connected  with  it,  applies 
to  all  other  cases  included  in  that  general  law. 

This  rule  is  illustrated  by  the  two  following  cases: 
a.  The  practice  of  witchcraft  was  according  to  the  gener- 
al law  in  Ex.  XXII,  17  (n^nn  S^  nSty^D)  a  capital  crime. 
The  nature  of  the  capital  punishment  is,  however,  not  defined 
in  this  general  law.  But  in  regard  to  a  (iortain  kind  of  witch- 
craft, nnmoly  '»J'ij;i^1  31K  (having  a  familiar  spirit  and  l)eing  a 
wizard)  the  law  specifies  the  punishment  as  that  of  stoning 
(Lev.  XX,  27).  Hence  this  punishment  applies  to  the  practice 
of  any  kind  of  witchcraft'. 


'Tal.   ChuUin  88b:  onQ  ICy  -SSs  inD3"l  NO'X 

•tiiDi  ^^33  inix  PJT  TNI 
'Talm.    Ranhpderin  67h:  vn  D'E^DO  S!?32   ""JIVTI  31K 

iS  iDiSi  Dn^^K  K'^pnS  ?  1NV'  r\xh\ 


Modifications.  171 

b.  Dent.  XXII  1-3,  the  law  treats  of  the  duty  to  restore 
found  i)roi)erty  to  its  owner.  After  having  enjoined  this  duty 
concerning:  animals  found  going  astray,  it  is  added:  '-And  so 
shalt  thou  do  with  his  garment'^  and  so  shalt  thou  do  with  every 
lost  thing  of  thy  brother's,  which  he  hath  lost,  and  thou  hast 
found. .."In  interpreting  this  law  the  Rabljissay:Why  i^garmcnt 
expressly  mentioned,  though  contained  in  the  general  term  of 
"every  lost  thing"?  It  is  to  indicate  of  Avhat  nature  the  found 
tilings  must  be  concerning  which  it  is  your  duty  to  advertise 
in  order  to  restore  them  to  their  owner.  f]very  garment  had 
certainly  an  owner  and,  besides,  it  has  some  marks  by  which 
he  could  identify  it.  So  the  duty  of  advertising  tound  things 
refers  only  to  such  property  which  obviously  had  an  owner  who 
will  reclaim  it  and  which  has  certain  marks  by  which  he  might 
be  able  to  identify  it.' 

Third  ModificatTon.    Rule  IX. 

§  i<. 
i:'':-;d  sinty  ins  jyiia  jiyiD^  s'x^i  bb'22  n^nD*  nai  '?5 

Wherever  a  single  ease,  though  already  included  in  a  general 
law,  is  expressly  mentioned  with  a  provision  similar  to  the  general, 
such  a  case  is  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  alleviating ,  but  not 
of  aggravatitig. 

An  example  is  furnished  in  Ex.  XXXV,  3:  "you  shall  kindle 
no  fire  throughout  your  habitations  on  the  Sabbath  day". 
Now  kindling  fire  being  regarded  as  a  labor,  is  included  in  the 
general  prohibition  of  doing  any  labor  on  the  Sabbath  day. 
Since  here  expressly  mentioned,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  alle- 
viating this  special  case  by  exempting  it  Irom  the  rigor  ot  the 
general  law  in  regard  to  labor  on  the  Sabbath  day,  so  that  he 


'Mishna  B.   Metzia  IT,    5:  nSx  ^3  h'?'2l  nn'H  nn^DL'Tl  tjX 

Otlier  examples  are  furnislied  in   Tal.  Yehaniotli  7a,   and  Klieii- 
thoth  2b. 


172  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

who  kindles  fire  on  that  day,  transgresses  only  a  prohibitory 
law,  but  is  not  subject  to  that  severe  punishment  which  the 
preceding-  verse  appoints  for  other  kinds  of  labor.' 

Fourth  Mouification.   Rule  X. 

§  is. 

irjyD  i<b^'  -ins  jVit:  jiyta'?  Ni"*!  ^^rz  n^n'^  izi  h2 

Wherever  a  single  case,  though  included  in  a  general  laiv,  is 
separately  mentioned  with  a  provision  differing  from  that  contained, 
in  the  general,  such  a  case  is  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of  alleviat- 
ing us  well  as  of  aggravating. 

This  rule  may  be  illustrated  by  the  passage  in  Ex.  XXI, 
28-32.  There  the  law  provides  that  if  a  man  or  woman  lins 
been  killed  by  a  beast  that  haii  not  been  duly  guarded  by  the 
proprietor,  though  its  savage  nature  was  known  to  him,  that 
proprietor,  besides  losing  the  mischievous  animal,  had  to 
pay  (to  the  bereaved  family)  such  an  indemnification  as  may 
be  laid  upon  him  by  the  court  After  this  general  provision 
the  law  adds  that  if  a  male  or  female  slave  was  killed  by  such 
a  vicious  animal,  its  proprietor  has  to  pay  to  the  master  of 
the  slave  an  indemnification  k^K  thirty  shekels.  Now  the  cas(! 
of  male  or  female  slave,  though  included  in  the  preceding  gen- 
eral law  of  man  and  woman,  is  here  separately  mentioned 
with  a  provision  dirt'erent  from  the  general  in  this,  that  tin; 
amount  of  tlu!  indemnification  is  fixed.  This  separate  provision 
is  for  the  |)uroosc  of  alleviating  as  well  as  aggravating;  alle- 
viating^ in  the  case  of  the  actual  value  of  the  killed  slave  being 


'Talm.   Sabbath  70a,    a?i(i  Sanhederin  ;}5b:    flNV'  InSS    mV2n. 

Then;  is  liowovor  anotluM-  opinion  rei)reHented  liy  R.  Natlian  who, 
interpreting  this  special  prohibition  of  "kindling  tire"  according  to 
the  second  niodifi<-,afcion  (Rule  VTIT),  holds  :  nXV  pSnS  my3n,  this 
special  prohibition  of  one  kind  of  labor  is  an  indication  that  each  of 
several  labors  done  f)n  a  Sabbath-day  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  separ- 
ate desecration  of  that  day,  for  which  the  transgrassor,  under 
circunistancos,    had    \o  bring    a  separate   sin-offering.  Talni.  ibid. 


MOOII-IOATIONS.  ITn 

more,  and  aggraTofi/ii;;    in  the  case  of  its  bein^^  less  than  tliirty 
shekels. 

See  Mechilta,  Mishi)atim,  Parsha  XI  ami  Mishna  B.  Kani- 
nia  IV,  5. 

Fifth  Modification.    Rule  XI. 

§  49. 

trinn  n2i2  ]r\b  hb^n  ]o  s:f^i  bh22  n^nti'  nn  h^ 

WJterever  a  single  case,  though  included  in  a  general  hnc\  is  ex- 
ceptcd  from  it  by  an  entirely  ne7v  provision^  such  a  case  is  not  to  e 
brought  again  under  the  general  law,  unless  this  be  expressly  indic- 
ated in  the  Scripture. 

An  illustrating  example  is  furnished  in  Lev.  XIV,  11-16. 
One  of  the  two  sacrifices  which  the  healed  leper  had  to  bring 
for  his  purification  was  a  trespass-offering  (DB^{<).  But  while 
the  blood  of  trespass-offerings  in  general  was  sprinkled  only 
on  the  altar,  the  offering  of  the  healed  leper  made  an  excep- 
tion in  this,  that  some  of  its  blood  was  applied  to  the  person 
of  him  that  was  to  be  cleansed  (verse  2o).  This  peculiar  way 
of  sprinkling  is  tyinn  "l2"r  the  entirely  new  (extraordinary) 
provision  by  which  this  sacrifice  is  excepted  from  the  general 
law  of  trespass-offerings.  Hence  it  would  have  to  be  excepted 
also  from  the  other  ordinances  and  rites  regarding  trespass-offer- 
ings, had  not  the  Scrii)ture  expressly  brought  it  again  under 
the  general  law  by  adding  (verse  13  sin  DtrNn  r.«!Dn2)  that 
this  offering  was  otherwise  to  be  sacrificed  as  a  trespass-offer- 
ino-  in  the  usual  way.     Talm.  Zebachim  49a. 


CHAPTER  VI 

RULES  XII  AND  XIII. 

The  Explanation  from  the  Context.    Rule  XII. 
§  50. 

A  word  (or  passage)  is  to  be  explained  from  its  connection  or 
from  ik'hat  follows. 

That  if*  to  say, the  true  meaning?  or  of  alnw  of  a  clause  in  a 
law  is  sometimes  to  he  interpreted  by  considering  the  Avhole 
context  in  which  it  stands  or  by  looking  to  that  which  follows.' 

Examples: 

a.  Explaining  an  ambiguous  word  from  the  context: 
The  word  ri^^w^jri  occurs  in  Levit.  XI,  18, among  the  names 

of  unclean  fowls,  and  again  in  verse  30  among  the  creeping 
things  on  earth.  Hence,  it  is  concluded,  that  the  law  does  not 
refer  to  the  same  animal,  but  in  the  former  place  to  a  certain 
kind  of  bird  (namely  according  to  LXX  the  swan^  and  accord- 
ing to  the  Talmud,  to  the  hat)^  and  in  the  other  place  to 
the  mole.'i 

b.  Explaining  the  meaning  of  a  passage  from  the  context. 
In  Ex.  XVI,  29,   we  read:    "Abide  you  every  man   in  his 

place,  let  no  man  go  out  of  his  place  on  the  seventh  day."  If 
taken  out  of  its  connection,  this  passage  would  contain  an  in- 
junction that  no  Israelite  shall  leave  his  place  on  the  Sabbath 
day.     But  if  we   look   to  the  context,  we  find  that  it  refers  to 


'Compare  the  following  rule  of  modern  jurisprudence  with  refer" 
ence  to  the  mode  of  construing  deeds  and  written  instruments  :  Ex 
antecedentibuH  et  consequentibus  fit  optima  interpretatio.  *'A  passage 
will  be  best  interpreted  by  reference  to  that  wich  precedes  and  fol- 
lows it".  (Broom,  Legal  Maxims  577).  Compare  also  the  maxim:  Nos- 
fitur  (I  Nociifi  "The  meaning  of  a  clause  may  be  ascertained  by  ref- 
erence to  the  meaning  of    expressions  associated    with  it"  (ibi.    588). 

'■■Chuliin  «:^a:  '1D1  irJVO  nO^H  "131  ,n"ID1U3K'  niK3  noK'jn 

'1D1  w'i-i^i^  nii<3  noK'jn 


The  Explanation  prom  the  Context.  175 

the  manna  gatherers,  prohibiting  them  to  go  out  on  the  Sa))- 
bath  day  with  the  intention  to  seek  manna.' 

c.  Interpreting  a  clause  in  a  law  by  a  clause  which  follows: 
In  Deut.  XIX,  5  relating  to  the  cities  of  refuge  for  tlie 
manslayer,  the  law  says:  ''Lest  the  avenger  of  the  blood  pur- 
sue the  slayer  and  overtake  him  and  slay  him  ;  and  he  is  not 
worthy  of  death  etc."  This  last  clause  is  somewhat  ambiguous, 
whether  reterring  to  the  blood  avenger  or  to  the  manslayer. 
The  latter  interpretation  is  supported  by  the  clause  following- 
it:    '•'•in  as  much  as  he  hated  him  not  in  time  past P"^ 

Reconciliation  of  Conflicting  Passages.     Rule  XIII. 

§  51. 

cn^ra  ^13^1  •'tr^y^'n  Diron  srtr  -r>' 

Two  passages  contradicting  each  other  are,  if  possible^  to  be  re- 
conciled by  a  third  one.  ^ 

As  an  instance  of  contradictory  passages  we  may  refer  to 
Ex.  XIII,  6  and  Deut.  XVI,  8.  While  the  former  passage  en- 
joins: ^^Seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread,"  the  lat- 
ter passage  says:  ^'Six  days  thou  shalt  cat  unleavene<l  bread." 

In  a  plain  way,  the  contradiction  between  these  two  pas- 

iThis  plain  interpretation  according  to  tlie  context  is  also  adopt- 
ed by  Rashi  in  his  commentary  on  this  passage.  Talmudical 
interpretation,  however,  disregarded  in  this  case  the  context,  and 
deduced  from  the  words  of  this  passage  the  general  prohibition  that 
no  Israelite  shall,  on  a  Sabbath-day,  go  farther  than  2000  cubits 
from  the  place  of  his  abode  (n3K'  Qinn  "the  Sabbatli  way"J;  for 
that  was  the  distance  of  the  holy  tabernacle  from  the  remotest 
•lart  of  the  Israelitish  camp  in  the  desert.    See  Talm.  Erubin  51a. 

^Maccoth  10b:  1310  ainsn  nviia  ,niD  ddc'o  px  i^i 

?  mn  bNi33  x^x  U'x  ix  nvna  noix  nnx 

mi^'^K'  biono  ab  xiiL"  "h  xini  iioix  xincra 

.imo  airiDn  nvm  -idix  "in 

^  Compare  the  following  rnle  of  interpretation  established  in 
modern  jurisprudence  (Potter,  Dwarris  treatise  on  statutes  p.  144)  : 
"  Where  there  is  a  discrepancy  or  disagreement  between  two  statutes, 
such  interpretation  should  be  given  that  both  may,  if  possible,  stand 
together." 


176  Hermeneutics  of  the  Taoiud. 

sages  may  be  removed  by  taking  tlie  latter  passage  in  the 
sense  that  six  days  unleaven<id  bread  shall  be  eaten,  but  that 
on  the  seventh,  besides  this  observance,  a  holy  convocation 
shall  be  held;  or,  that  unleavened  bread  shall  be  eaten  during 
six  days  besides  the  first,  the  celebration  of  which  had  been 
treated  more  fully  in  the  preceding  verses. 

In  a  more  artificial  way,  the  rabbinical  interpi-etation 
tries  to  reconcile  the  contradictory  passages  accor<ling  to  oui- 
Rule  by  referi'ing  to  a  third  passage,  namely  Lev.  XXIII,  14 
wiiere  the  law  enjoins  that  no  use  whatsoever  was  allowed  to 
be  made  of  the  new  corn  until  the  oflering  of  an  Omer  of  the 
first  i)roduce  of  the  barley  harvest  had  taken  place  on  the 
morning  after  the  first  day  of  Pesach.  Hence  unleavened 
In-ead  preparer!  of  the  new  corn  was  to  be  eaten  only  during 
the  six  remaining  days  of  that  festival.  Referring  to  this  cir- 
cumstance, the  passage  in  Deut.  XVI,  8  speaks  of  six  days, 
while  the  passage  in  Ex  XIII,  6  refers  to  the  unleavened  bread 
prepared  of  the  |)roduce  of  the  former  year's  harvest  which 
might  be  eaten  iluring  seven  days.' 

Remark.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  however,  apply  in  their  interpret- 
ation of  Deut.  XVI,  8  the  Rule  VIII  and  arrive  at  the  conclusion 
thatjust  as,  according  to  this  passage,  the  eating  of  unleavened  bread 
"on  the  seventh  day  was  optional,  so  it  was  also  optional  on  the  first 
six  days,  so  that  it  was  not  obligatory  to  eat  just  that  which  is  prop- 
erly called  unleavened  bread  (Matza),  provided  that  nothing  is  eaten 
wliicli  is  leavened  (Chametz).  Only  on  tlie  first  eve  of  this  festival 
the  eating  ot  such  unleavened  bread  was  regarded  as  obligatoi-y,  as  the 
hiw  concerning  tlie  paschal-lamb  on  tlie  eve  expressly  enjoins  (Ex. 
XII,  8)  "with  unleavened  bread  and  with  bitter  herbs  they  shall  eat  it. '"'^ 


'     Mechilta,  Ho,  VIII  (compare  also  Talmud  Menachoth  66a): 
«     rcsachiiii   laOa:  niKH  D'O"'  riK'L"  ^IK  niKH  T3tf  HO 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ADDITIONAL  RULES. 
A.     Juxtaposition. 

§  52. 

<#. 

A  peculiar  kind  of  analogy  which  has  some  similarity  to 
Heckesh  (above  p.  152)  is  that  called  j''31!3D  ccniiguous passages, 
or  the  analogy  made  IVorn  the.  juxtaposition  of  two  laws  in  Script- 
ure. 

The  theory  of  this  rule  is  that  the  meaning  of  a  law  is 
sometimes  explained  from  another  law  or  passage  which  is 
placed  near  by,  either  preceding  or  following  it.' 

The  following  examples  will  illustrate  this  rule: 

1.  The  word  Mamzer  (usually  translated  a  bastard)  in  the 
law  Deut.  XXIII,  3:  '*A  Mamzer  shall  not  enter  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  Lord"  denotes,  according  to  rabbinical  interpreta- 
tion, one  born  of  incest  or  adultery.  This  Interpretation  is 
based  on  the  circumstance  that  a  preceding  law  (ib.  verse  L) 
interdicts  an  incestuous  comK^ction.'' 

2.  The  law  prohibits  every  labor  on  Sabbath,  without 
specifying  the  occupations  included  in  that  interdiction,  thus 
leaving  a  wide  scope  to  individual  opinion  on  the  nature  of 
Sabbatical  labor.  Tradition,  in  order  to  prevent  arbitrariness 
in  so  important  a  point,  tried  to  fill  out  this  void  by  a  detailed 
definition  of  the  nature  of  work,  and  minutely  specified  the 
labors  which  are  allowed  and  which  ai-e  forbidden  on  Sabbath. 
The  Talmud  distinguishes  thirty  nine  chief  labors  mDS'^D  m^N/ 
comprising  all  those  occupations  which  were  necessary  for  the 


'     This  rule  was  probably  introduced  by  R.  Akiba,    see  Siphre, 
Numbers  181:  '^3^  naiODtT  ntT-lD  ^3  1»"IN  y""l 

»    Yebamoth  49a. 

•1TDD    Nn'  N^  TS'h  I'CDI 


178  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud, 

construction  of  the  holy  tabernacle.  This  is  based  on  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Scripture  repeatedly  (Exod.  XXXI  l-lt; 
XXXV,  1  sq.)  brought  the  Sabbath  law  in  juxtaposition  with 
the  description  of  the  tabernacle.* 

Remark.  The  theory  of  paiDD  which  Ben  Azai,  one  of  R.  Akiba's 
disciples,  even  applied  in  the  construction  of  criminal  laws,  was  not 
generally  adopted.  R.  Jehuda  ben  Ilai,  another  disciple  of  R.  Akiba, 
is  especially  mentioned  as  having  been  opposed  to  its  general  application. 
He  strongly  objected  to  a  deduction  based  by  the  former  on  that  the- 
ory in  the  case  of  a  certain  capital  crime,  remarking  with  astonishment: 
"How,  shall  we  inflict  the  punishment  of  stoning  upon  a  criminal  be- 
cause two  laws  are  Lucidentally  in  juxtaposition?"  (Yebamoth  4a;  San- 
hedrin  67b.). 

He  admitted  the  analogy  from  juxtaposition  only  in  cer- 
tain cases,  especially  in  regard  to  laws  found  in  the  book  of  Deuternomy 
where  the  laws  are  evidently  arranged  according  to  a  certain  plan, 
while  in  regard  to  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  it  is  held  :  px 
mina  iniKDI  DTpllO  "there  is  no  certain  order  for  the  sequence  of  the 
laws"  (Pesachim  6b), hence  no  analogy  must  there  be  based  on  the  jux- 
taposition of  two  laws    (Sanhedrin  ibid.). 

§  53. 

Another  kind  of  ]''3l!;D  consists  in  the  method  of  sepa- 
rating the  final  part  of  a  clause  or  sentence  and  connecting  it 
with  the  beginning  of  the  following  clause  or  sentence,  and  in 
this  way  artificially  forming  a  new  sentence,  the  sense  of  which 
is  to  support  a  certain  traditional  law. 

This  peculiar  method  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following 
examples. 

1.  It  was  a  traditional  rule  of  law,  based  on  common 
sense,  that  a  judge  was  unfit  to  sit  in  court  when  known  to 
nourish  inimical  feelings  either  against  the  defendant  or  against 
one  of  his  fellow  judges.     In  the  absence  of  an  express  passage 


»  Talm.  Sabbath  49b:  p^on  muy  n333  DWX^D  n)3X;  see  Rashi's 
Commentary  on  tliis  passagf.  Other  examples  t»f  this  kind  of  .analogy 
are  found  in  Pesachim  96a;  Yebamoth  4a. 


Additional    IIules.  179 

in  the  Mosaic  law  bearing  on  this  rule,  the  Rabbis  construed 
an  artificial  support  in  the  following  way.    In  Numbers  XXXV, 

23,    in  the    law  about    unintentional    murdei',    it   is  said 

"whereas  he  was  not  his  enemy,  and  did  not  seek  his  harm''. 
These  words  plainly  refer  to  the  slayer  and  the  slain  man,  but 
by  connecting  them  with  the  beginning  of  the  following  sen 
tence  (verse  24):  ''the  congregation  (i.  e.  the  court)  shall 
judge...",  the  new  sentence  is  construed:  Being  no  enemies  and 
U(»i  seeking  his  harm,  they  shall  judge  as  a  court.' 

2.  In  Lev.  XXlll,  22  we  read:...  "and  the  gleaning  of 
Ihy  harvest  thou  shalt  not  gather  ;  unto  the  poor  and  the  stranger 
shalt  ihou  leave  them. "  13y  closely  connecting  the  end  of  the 
first  clause  with  the  beginning  of  the  next  clause,  the  sentence 
is  formed  :  '■'■thou  shalt  not  gather  unto  the  poor""^  intimatiug  that 
the  owner  of  the  field  has  no  right  to  gather  the  gleaning  in 
Itelialf  of  a  certain  poor  and  thereby  depriving  the  other  pooi- 
of  their  claim  to  that  gleaning  warranted  them  by  the  laws.' 

B.     Restrictive  Rules  in  the  Application  of  Analogy. 

§  54 

J3y  way  of  a  plain  analogy,  particular  provisions  of  the 
law  concerning  a  certain  case  are  in  the  Talmud  often  trans- 
ferred to  another  case.  I'his  method  is  termed  iri'O  "D ; 
(compare  above  p.  159).  The  phrases  used  in  this  process  are 
either....  jD  ]rs'?'»  or  ....]d  jriD:,  we  derive,  learn  (this  pro- 
vision) from  (that  other  case  of...). 

The  use  of  analogy  for  such  purpose  presupposes  consisten- 
cy in  the  law,  so  that  its  provisions  in  one  case  were  intended 
to  apply  also  to  an  another  similar  case.  But  though  the  two 
cases  from  the  comparison  of  which  an  analogy  is  drawn  need 
not  to  be  alike  in  all  respects,  still  they  must,  at  least,  be- 
long to  the   same  sphere   of    the  law.     The     provisions    con 


(pn^  ^  KJiKH)  p^n^  in 
nnxa  jnn  patj'v  psB'  t"kt  pnjib'K'  n"n  ^JtrS  ^n^K 

Talm.  Sanhedrin  29a:  compare  Rashi's  commentary. 

"  Tai.  Gittin  12a:  >:;ir\  riN  y"Dn  xb  ,':y^  cpi^n  vb 


180  Hermeneutjcs  of  the  Talmud. 

nected  with  the  one  case  cannot  be  applied  to  another  case 
which  is  totally  different  in  its  legal  nature.  Hence  the  follow- 
ing restrictive  rules  in  the  application  of  analogy: 

In  a  ritual  case  we  do  not  apply  an  analogy  from  a  civil 
case,  and  vice  versa.  Berachoth  19a;  Baba  Metzia  20a;  Kid- 
dushin  .3b. 

In  a  case  concerning  pecuniary  restitution  we  do  not  apply 
an  analogy  from  a  case  concerning  fine.  Kethuboth  46b;  Kid- 
dushin  3b. 

In  a  case  concerning  profane  things  we  do  not  apply  an 
analogy  from  laws  concerning  sanctified  things,  Pesachim  45a; 
Shelmoth  26b;  Nazir  86b. 

4.    ]riD:  i<b  irnnD 

From  an  extraordinary,  exceptional  case  we  make  no  ana- 
logy.'    Pesachim  44b;  Moed  Katon  7b;  Chullin  98b. 

C.     Limited  or  Unlimited  Effect  of  an  Analogy. 
§55. 

When  provisions  of  one  law  (A)  are  to  be  applied  to  an- 
other law  (B)  by  virtue  of  a  traditional  analogy  (the  construc- 
t  ional  Gezera  Shava,  compare  above  §  24),  the  (juestion  arises 
whether  those  laws  are  to  be  treated  alike  in  every  respect, so 
that  all  particulars  found  in  A  are  applicable  to  B  or  whether 
the  consequences  of  such  an  analogy  are  to  be  restricted  to 
the  main  provision  only.  Concerning  this  question  two  differ- 
ent opinions  are  expressed. 

■  A  similar  rule  is  also  laid  down  in  modern  law  interpretation; 
compare  Fr,  Lieber,  Legal  and  Political  Hermeneutics,  p.  276:  "An  ex- 
ceptional case  can  of  itself  sustain  no  analogy,  since  the  instance  from 
which  we  reason,  the  analogon,  must  always  be  one  which  implies  the 
rule". 


Additional  Rules.  181 

One  opinion, represented  by  R.  Meir,  holds:  n2l21  nJD  ]M 
"deduce  from  it,  and  again  from  it",  that  is  to  say,  any  further 
provision  connected  with  A  may  be  transferred  to  B. 

But  the  other  opinion  is:  snnH3  ""piSI  PliD  |*"r  '"deduce 
from  it,  and  (as  for  the  rest)  leave  it  in  its  place",  that  is.  to 
say,  after  having  transferred  the  main  provision  of  A  to  B,  we 
are  to  let  B  retain  its  own  character  and  the  provisions  ex- 
pressly connected  with  it. 

The  difference  between  these  two  opinions  maybe  illustrat- 
ed by  the  following  example. 

In  Deut.  XXIII,  3,  the  law  provides  that  a  Mamzer,  that 
is,  one  born  of  incest,  ''shall  not  enter  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord,  even  to  the  tenth  generation.''''  A  similar  provision  has  an- 
other law  concerning  an  Ammonite  and  a  Moabite:  '■'■Even  to 
the  tenth  generation  they  shall  not  enter  into  the  congregation 
of  the  Lord, /(^r  (fz/^r."  By  a  Gezera  Shava  the  conclusion  is 
made  that  also  in  the  former  law  concerning  Mamzer  the  phrase 
"even  to  the  tenth  generation"  is  to  be  understood  "for  ever". 
(See  above  p.  150). 

But  while  the  term  Mamzer  implies  the  female  as  well  as 
the  male,  the  masculin  form  of  the  words  ''3S1D1  ''JIDV  is  taken 
by  tradition  strictly,  referring  to  males  only,  but  not  to  females 

(n^'jiay  «^i  •'iioy). 

According  to  the  opinion  of  n^DI  nJD  jH,  a  female  Mamzer^ 
after  the  tenth  generation,  might  be  admitted  to  enter  the  con- 
gregation ;  her  case  being  then,  in  all  respects,  analogous  to 
that  of  a  female  Amonite  who  is  exempted  from  the  prohibi- 
tion. 

But  according  to  the  opinion  of  Kins'^  '•plHI  nJD  pT,  the 
two  laws  are  analogous  only  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  "even  to  the  tenth  generation",  while  the  expression 
Mamzer  always  retains  its  comprehensive  meaning,  including 
females  as  well  as  males.  See  Yebamoth  78b.  Another  ex- 
ample Shebuoth  31a. 


18,'  Hkrmenbutics  of  the  Talmud. 

I).     Refl'tation  and  Reinstatement  of  Hermeneutic 
Arguments. 

§  ^>6. 

The  generalization  of  a  Special  Law  (above  Chapter  III) 
may  be  refuted  by  the  objection  that  a  particular  circumstance 
is  connected  with  that  special  law  which  renders  it  unfit  to  be 
generalized  or  to  be  applicable  to  other  cases. 

The  phrase  used  in  such  a  relutation  is  the  same  as  that 
whicli  is  used  in  refuting  the  premise  of  an  inference  of  Kal 
Vechomer  (see  above  p.  i:->7),   namely: fsty  '^l^bSib  "12 

"Why  is  that  special  provision  nmde  for  the  case  A?  Be- 
cause that  certain  peculiarity  is  connected  with  this  case"  .... 

After  such  a  refutation,  the  attempt  is  usuallf^  made  to  de- 
feud  the  liinyan  Ab  by  a  reference  to  case  B  having  the  same 
provision,  though  not  connected  with  that  peculiarity.  If  then 
also  the  generalization  of  case  B  is  objected  to,  on  account  of 
an  other  peculiarity  connected  with  its  provision, this  objection 
is  again  removed  by  a  reference  to  case  A  in  which  that  pecu- 
liarity is  not  found.  The  common  jirovision  of  A*  and  B  is  then 
generalized  according  to  the  usual  metluxl  of  ''Jtt'ii  2S  i^J3 
Cain^.  (See  above  p.  160).  The  procedure  of  this  combined 
generalization  is  usually  introduced  by  the  following  phrase: 

''The  conclusion  retui-iis  (that  is, the  former  argument  is  to 
be   reinstated),   for   A  is  not  like   B,  and  vice  versa,  but  the 

common  point  of  both  is "  Examples:  Maccoth  2b;  Sanhed 

rin  6()a. 

Hemark.  The  same  dialectic  pi'ocedurc  and  the  same 
phrases  arc  also  applieil  where  a  refuted  inference  of  Kal  Ve- 
chomer is  to  be  reinstated  by  a  combination  of  two  similar  cas- 
es, as  in  Berachoth  .loa  ;  Kiddushin  5  b;  B.  Metzia  4a,  and 
often, 

E.     Thk  Thkorv  of  KxTHN'srox  and  Limitation. 

The  t<'irii  '<'i2*i  nieiiiis  f.\/f//u'<>//;  tiiyc  Ht'iitalion.     The  idea 


Additional  Rules.  183 

connected  with  each  of  these  two  terms  when  applied  separate- 
ly, was  explained  in  the  introductory  chapter  §  6  and  §  7. 
We  have  here  to  consider  their  meaning  when  applied  con- 
jointly tai^DI  ''12"l  to  signify  a  theory  in  contradistinction  to 
that  ot  lonsi  ^'^a  (chapter  IV). 

In  as  much  as  a  general  term  (hb^)  denotes  an  indefinite 
number  of  individuals  having  something  in  common,  it  may  also 
be  regarded  as  ''Ml,  an  extension  of  the  meaning;  and  in  as 
much  as  a  particular,  singular  term  (t3"i£)  restricts  the  mean- 
ing to  definite  individuals,  it  maybe  regarded  as  taiy^D,  a  lim- 
itation. 

That  which  in  the  theory  ofR.  Ishmael  is  called  taiSI  ^^D, 
is  according  to  the  theory  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Akiba  regard- 
ed as  IDiyDT  ^^2•\. 

There  is  the  following  difference  between  these  two  the- 
ories. 

a)  In  a  combination  of  ID"1ST  ^^2,  the  particular  is  regard- 
ed as  the  explanation  of  the  preceding  general,  so  as  to  narrow 
down  its  comprehension  to  the  strict  contents  of  the  particular, 
excluding  even  that  which  is  similar  to  this  (riD  vh"^  hh'21  ]''S 
tanSZyl',  see  above  §  42). 

According  to  the  other  theory,  the  laiyD  merely  limits  the 
extension  of  the  preceding  ''l3"i,so  as  to  include  everything  sim- 
ilar, and  exclude  that  only  which  is  not  similar  to  it. 

nan  ir«tr  lay^DT  .Ssn  nan  ^tairai  "tian 

b)  In  a  combination  of  ^f?2T  tSIS  the  general  following  a 
particular  includes  everything  falling  under  the  general  (comp. 
Rule  V.  §  43).  But  according  to  the  other  theory,  the  ''121  fol- 
lowing the  laiy^D  includes  that  only    whicli  is  similar   to  that 

c)  In  a  combination  Qihhy^  DnSI  hh'2  we  include  only  that 
which  resembles  the  particular  (comp.  Rule  VI.  §  44). 

But,  according  to  the  other  theory,  the  rule  for  IDI^''^''  ''12"1 
"'13"l'l  is,  that  the  ''121  includes  everything,  even  that  which  is 
not  similar  to  the  loiya, the  effect  of  the  latter  being,  however, 
to  exclude  merely   one  single  thing  which  has  the  least  siniil 


184  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

aritj  to  it.     To  define  thin  one  thing-  to  be  excluded,  is  entire- 
ly left  to  the  judgment  of  the  expounding  Rabbis. » 

in«  -i^T  ahii  tDj;^»  s^i  h^n  nin  '•i^m  di^di  '•'121 

The  theory  of  tfliyDl  '•131,  being  not  as  clear  and  exact  as 
that  of  lansi  ^^3,  is  rejected  by  most  of  the  Tanaim,  and  ad- 
mitted only  in  some  special  cases." 

The  difference  between  these  two  theories  is  illustrated  by 
the  following  example. 

In  Levit.  Y,  21-23,  the  law  provides  that  if  an  embezzler 
without  having  been  c(«iA^icted  before  a  court,  but  prompted 
by  his  conscience,  wants  to  expiate  the  sin  of  his  injury  to 
some  person  in  respect  to  property,  then  he  has  to  restore  the 
fraudulently  acquired  property,  with  the  addition  of  one  fifth 
of  its  value,  and  besides  bring  a  trespass-offering.  The  law  in- 
troduces the  case  by  the  words: 

''If  a  person  commits  a  misdeed,  and  /ies  to  his  neighbor 
(General)  concerning  a  trust  or  a  deposit  (Particulars),  etc.  etc. 
or  7tf  hat  ever  it  may  be  about  which  he  has  stvorn  falsely  (General), 
then  he  shall  restore  etc". 

According  to  the  theory  of  ^^31  anSI  ^^3,  these  expres- 
sions are  to  be  construed  in  a  way  that  the  mulct  of  one  fifth 
of  the  original  amount  is  required  for  such  embezzled  objects 
only  which  arc  movables^  and  have  an  intrinsic  value ^  the  former 
excluding  real  estate^  and  the  latter  excluding  bills  or  notes. 

But  according  to  the  theory  of  Diyoi  ^121,  the  law  refers 
to  any  kind  of  embezzled  property,  including  real  estate^  exclud- 
ing, however,  bills  or  notes  which  have  merely  a  representative 
value.    • 

The  argumentation  according  to  these- two  theories  is  expressed  in 
the  following  way: 

'See  Rashi  on  Talm.  Kiddushin  21b,  and  «)n  Shebuoth  4b. 
''Seo  B.  Kainitia  f5tlt;  Shebuoth  5a;  Chnllin  67a. 


Additional  Rules.  185 


B 


rtDiy-'DT  ''^in->  tym  niy^N  "\  rtansji  ""^^^  ■'irm  pan. 

DV'D  —  T  noiKTia  IN  |npQ3  ma  —  t  nDi::^)^  in  inp33 

nam  nrn  —  yat:*'  ik'N  ^3D  in  bh^^  irn  —  ync:''  ic'N  b^D  in 

^an  na-i  M3ni  Diyo  'un      tDnsn  pya  n^n  n  nriN  \s  ^bai  l3-idi  bb^ 

'b'o  ^3  'an  '3n  ^no       p»»  isui  baboon  lan  k'-iisd  dish  hd 

niiDK'  cyo  ,oy'D  'ND^  -'.od  isi:i  ^oboon  b  sjn 

pbobaD  pNc  niypnp  inx' 
IvrD  tsi3  pNK'  nntsK'  in^' 
Talm.    B.  Kamma  117b;  Shebuoth  37b,  Other  examples :Succah 
50b;  Kiddushin  21b;  Shebuoth  26a. 

F.     "Mikra"  or  "Masora"? 

§  58 

Although  our  vowel-sigus  of  the  Biblical  text  wci,  .iit  yet 
introduced  at  the  Talmudic  period,  still  the  correct  pronun- 
ciation according  to  the  vowels  was  fixed  by  oral  tradition. 

The  reading  of  the  text  according  to  the  established  pro- 
nunciation was  called  S"ip!2  (reading).  The  proper  spelling 
of  the  words  of  the  sacred  text  as  fixed  by  tradition,  letters 
without  vowels,  is  termed  Masora  (miDD  oi-  nilDD). 

The  peculiar  spelling  of  many  words  sometimes  admits  a 
meaning  somewhat  difterent  from  that  which  is  expressed  bv 
the  established  pronunciation  or  our  present  vocalization. 
The  question  then  arises  whether  in  such  a  case  the  law  is  to 
be  intrepreted  according  to  the  vowel  reading  or  rather  accord- 
ing to  the  letters  with  which  the  word  is  spelled  in  the  Masora. 

In  this  respect  two  opposite  o{)inions  are  expressed  in  the 
Talmud.  One  holds:  KlptS^  DS  IT^  "The  source  of  law  is  in 
the  reading"  i,  e.  the  reading  of  a  word  according  to  its  estab- 
lished vocalization  is  essential  to  decide  its  meaning.  The 
other  opinion  is:  miD!^^  QS  ty  "the  source  is  in  the  Masorr^'' 
that  is,  the  spelling  of  the  word  as  fixed  by  the  Masora  is  moi-o 
material  in  <lehning  its  meaning. 


186  Hermeneutics  of  the  Talmud. 

Example:  Speaking  of  the  cities  of  refuge  to  which  he  who 
imintcntiouall}'  killed  a  fellow-man  was  to  flee, the  law  illustrates 
the  case  of  such  au  unintentional  homicide  by  the  following 
words:  As  when  a  man  goeth  into  the  the  woods  Avith  his 
iioiglil)or  to  hew  wood,  and  his  hand  fetcheth  a  stroke  with  the 
axe  to  cut  down  the  tree,  |'yr!  ]0  ^T12n  ^tl-'il  and  the  iron  slip 
pelh  from  the  wood,  and  findeth  his  neighbor,  that  he  die,  etc." 
(Deutr.  XIX,  5.) 

According  to  the  opinion  of  HIpD^  QS,  this  passage  refers 
only  to  the  case  where  the  killing  happened  by  the  iron  of  the 
axe  slipping  from  tlie  helve.  But  according  to  the  opinion  of 
n"'*DJ2^  CS  the  letters  of  the  word  ^'^21  admit  that  word  to  be 
read  h^*T\  in  the  Piel  form,  so  as  to  give  the  sense  "and  the  iron 
splints  a  piece  from  the  tree",  hence  this  passage  refers  only 
to  a  case  where  the  killing  happened  by  a  piece  of  wood  which 
the  axe  cut  from  the  tree. 

Maccoth  Vb;  other  examples  Pesachim  86a,  and  Sanhedrin  4a. 
In  this,- as  in  most  of  other  cases,  the  opinion  ofS'lpD^  DS 
prevailed.  The  opposite  opinion  was  accepted  only  where  it 
served  to  support  a  traditional  interpretation  of  a  law;  for  in- 
stance, that  the  expression  of  D"»nor,  mS3  (Levit  XXIII,  40) 
which  tlie  Masora  spells  n23  (without  i)  refers  only  to  one 
branch  (»r  the  pahii  tree  (Talm.  Succah  ;>2a). 

CLOSING  REMARK. 

Concluding  this  exposition  of  the  principal  rules  of  Talmu- 
diiral  Hcrnicncutics,  we  must  remind  the  sUuU^nt  that  this  sys- 
tem of  artificial  interpretation  was  mainly  calculated  to  offer 
the  means  of  ingrafting  the  tradition  on  the  stem  of  Scripture, 
or  harmonizing  the  oral  with  the  written  law. 

Modern  scientific  exegesis,  having  no  other  object  than  to 
d(!terminc  the  exact  and  natural  sense  of  each  passage  in  Scrip- 
ture, must  resort  to  heruKmeutic  rules  fitted  to  that  purpose, 
iind   can  derive    but  little  benefit    IVoni    tlinl    artificial  system. 


Closing  Remark.  IST 

Thus  already  the  great  Jewish  Bible  commentators  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages,  Ibn  Ezra,  Kimchi,  and  others  who  are  justly  re- 
garded as  the  fathers  of  that  thoroughly  sound  and  scientific 
system  of  exegesis  that  prevails  in  modern  times,  remained  in 
theii-  interpretation  of  the  Bible  entirely  independent  of  the 
hcrmeneutic  rules  of  Hillel,  R.  Ishmael  and  R.  Akiba.  Never- 
theless, this  system  deserves  our  attention,  since  it  forms  a  very 
essential  part  of  the  groundwork  on  which  the  mental  structure 
of  the  Talmud  is  rcai-cd.  It  must  be  known  even  in  its  details, 
if  the  Talmudic  discussions,  which  often  turn  on  some  nice 
point  of  the  rules  of  that  system,  arc  to  be  thoroughly  under- 
stood. 


PART     III. 


TALMUDICAL  TERMINOLOGY  AND    METHODOLOGY. 


TALMUDICAL  TERMINOLOGY  AND  METHODOLOGY. 

Prefatory. 

Like  any  otlier  ])ranch  of  science  and  literature,  the  Talmud 
has  it's  peculiar  system  of  technical  terms  and  phrases  adapted 
to  its  peculiar  methods  of  investigation  and  demonstration. 
To  familiarize  the  student  with  these  methods  and  with  the 
terms  and  phrases  most  frequently  used  in  the  Talmud  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  following  chapters.  As  the  Mishna  is  the  text  on 
which  the  'Gemara  comments,  we  begin  with  the  explanation 
of  some  of  the  terms  in  reference  to  certain  features  in  the 
structure  of  the  Mishna.  We  shall  then  proceed  to  the  various 
modes  and  terms  used  by  the  Gemara  in  explaining  and  discus- 
sing the  Mishna.  This  will  be  followed  by  an  exposition  of  the 
ways  in  which  the  Talmud  generally  discusses  the  reports  and 
opinions  of  the  Amoraim.  Finally,  the  methods  and  processes 
of  Talmudical  aigumentation  and  debates  as  well  as  the  terms 
and  stereotyped  phrases  connected  therewith,  will  be  set  forth. 


A.     THE  MISflNA. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Terms  and  Phrasrs  regarding  the  Structure  of  a  Miphna 
Paragraph. 

D  n  D 

§1. 

'i'lu'  Minima  very  often  simply  lays  down  the  law  vsithout 
mentioning  its  author  or  any  conllict  of  opinions  that  existed 
in  regard  to  it.  Such  a  Paragraph  of  the  Mishna  is  termed 
DfiD,  an  anonymous  and  undisjiuted  Mishna.  Examples:  Uera- 
choth  I,  4;  III,  1-3. 

Such  anonymous  and  undisputed  Mishna  paragraphs  are 
generally  regarded  as  authoritative.  They  are  mostly  of  a  ve- 
ry ancient  origin,  having  ))een  incorporated  into  the  work  of  R. 
Jehuda  Hanasi  from  older  llalacha  collections  nuideby  fca-mer 
teachers,  especially  that  of  R.  Meir.  "ii^D  '"i  i''iT':nD  criD 
Sanhedrin  86a. 

§2. 

Often  also  the  Mishna  reports  a  conflict  of  opinions  in  regard 
to  a  certain  law.  Such  a  conflict  is  termed  np'^riD  a  division 
or  difference  of  opinion. 

The  conflicting  opinions  are  set  forth  in  different  ways: 

a.  After  having  laid  down  the  anonymous  rule  of  law,  the 
dissenting  opinion  of  a  ceTtain  teacher  is  added  by:  "i;oiX*'J'i^2  '\ 
Rabbi  A  says..,.  In  such  cases,  the  anonymous  author  of  the 
first  opinion  is  termed  in  the  Gemara  SDD  mn  the  fonner  tea- 
cher.    Example:  Berachoth  IV,  1. 

Remark.  As  the  anonymous  opinion  represents  that  of  the  teachers 
in  general,  the  Gemara  sometimes  calls  it  also  D'lOan  ^121  the  words 
(the  collective  opinion)  of  the  sages;  f.  i.  Sanhedrin  31a. 

b.  A  rule  of  law  is  laid  down  with  the  addition    "i  >121 


192  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

'i<  ''Jl'?S  these  are  the  words  of  Rabbi  A,  and  then  the  dissent- 
ing opinion  is  introduced  by  :  "iDIW  '2  ''l^h^  '"11  but  Rabbi  B 
says...;  or  the  question  of  hiw  is  propounded,  and  then  the  dis- 
senting opinions  concerning  it  are  introduced  by  "iCIN  '8  "'JI^S  '^ 
"IDIK  '2  "'Jl^S  "n.     Examples:  Berachoth  II,  1  and  3. 

Such  a  difference  of  opinion  in  which  the  opposite  views 
are  represented  by  single  teachers  is  teimed  in  the  Gemara 
"Ti^l  l^rT*  npl^riD  a  difference  between  individuals. 

c.  The  opinion  of  a  single  teacher  concerning  a  question 
of  law  having  been  set  forth,  the  collective  opinion  of  other 
contenii)orary  teachers  differing  therefrom  is  introduced  by: 
D'^IDIS  Cl^-m  but  the  (other)  sages  say....  Example  :  Bera- 
chotli  VI,  4. 

Such  a  conflict  of  opinions  between  an  individual  and  a 
majority  of  other  teachers  is  termed  in  the  (iemara  npl^riD 
D"*;"!!  l^rf  a  conflict  between  ati  individual  and  the  majority.  Gene- 
i-ally,tho  o])inion  of  the  majority  prevails.  This  rule  is  phrased: 
C'i-O  n^^n  CZII  Tn^  where  an  individual  and  the  majority 
ditt'er  from  each  other,  the  opinion  of  the  majority  is  Halacha 
(the  accepted  law).    Berachoth  9a. 

d.  The  conflicting  opinions  are  represented  by  different 
schools,  especially  those  of  Shamai  and  Hillol. 

Examples:     Berachoth  I,  1;  VIII,  1.  .'>.  T.  8. 
Remark.     In  a  conflict  between  tliose  two    schools  the  opinion  of 
the  School  of  Hillel  generally  prevails.     HJK'D  T\T\f,  \\"1  D1pD3  ^"2    Be- 
raclioth  36b. 

§  3. 

Where  a  Mislina  paragraph  contains  provisions  for  two 
or  more  cases, the  former  case  is  signified  by  Xtt'^"!  (the  case  at 
the  beginning),  and  tlie  following  or  last  case  by  «S''D  (the  case 
at  the  end).  The  case  between  these  two  is  termed  wnySD 
the  middle  case. 

Example  for  a  Mishna  paragraph  with  two  cases:  B.  Metzia 
I,  .'};  for  one  with  three  cases:  B.  Metzia  I,  4.  See  also  Gema- 
la  Kiddushln  63a*,  Rerithoth  lib;  Chullin  94b. 

Ill  a  paragraph  divided  into  two  main  parts,  A  and  B, 
each  containing  two  cases,  a  and  b,  the  case  o!'A  '»  is  termed 
Stt^"""!!  i<B''D,  and  that  of  li,  a   «B'»D1  Kit"''!. 


Terms  and  1*hrases  regarding  the  Mishna.  193 

Example:  She))iiotli  VJ,  7.  Compare  Talmud  Shebuotli 
43b;  B.  Metzia  34b. 

Remark.  A  part  of  a  Mishna  paragraph  referring  to  a  separate 
case  or  proposition  is  also  termed  X33  (gate,  section,  clause);  hence 
the  terms  KS^m  N33  the  clause  of  the  first  proposition,  KQ^DT  K23 
the  clause  of  the  subsequent  proposition.     Sabbath  3a;  Yebamoth  18b^ 

D  y  13 

§  4. 

The  Mishna,  in  general,  simply  lays  down  the  rule  of  law 
without  stating  its  reason.  At  times,  however,  the  reason  is 
added.  The  reason  of  a  law  is  termed  DJ?10-  It  is  either  based 
a)  on  a  biblical  passage  ({<"ip)  and  its  interpretation,  and  is 
then  usually  introduced  by  -iOfc<:tt^ ;  or  b)  on  connnon  sense 
(S13D) ;  or  c)  on  a  general  principle   (^^73). 

Examples:  a)  Berachoth  IX,  5;  B.  Metzia  II,  7.10.  b)  B. 
Metzia  I,  7;  II,  11.     c)  B.  Kamma  III,  10.11. 

Remark.  The  Gemara  generally  invertigates  the  reason  of  the 
law  where  it  is  not  stated  in  the  Mishna. 

§  5. 
Also  the  different  opinions  of  the  teachers  concerning  a  point 
of  the  law^are  generally  set  forth  in  the  Mishna  without  the  reason 
of  the  difference  being  added.  Occasionally,  however,  not  only 
the  reason  of  one  or  both  of  the  contradictory  opinions  is  stated, 
but  even  a  shorter  or  longer  controversy  is  recorded  in  which 
the  teachers  argue  in  opposition  to  each  other  on  some  questions 
of  law.  Such  a  controversy  is  termad  in  the  Gemara  j<n31^S. 
The  elaborate  argumentation  pro  and  con  is  also  termed  i^^o 
inDI  or  in  Aramaic  «ini21  «^ptt^  (literally,  a  taking  and  giving 
of  arguments,  i.  e.,  a  aiscussioti).  Examples  of  controversies  in 
the  Mishna:  Berachoth  I,  3;  Pesachim  VI,  2;  Taanith  J,  1;  B. 
Kamma  II,  .5. 

n  ty  y  D 

§  6. 
The  Mishna  sometimes  adds  to  its   rule  of  law  or  to  its 


194  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

oi^iiiions  of  the  contesting  teachers  the  report  of  a  certain  case 
in  which  a  celebrated  authority  gave  a  decision  either  1)  in 
accordance  with  or  2)  in  contradiction  to  the  rule  just  laid 
down  or  the  opinion  just  expressed.  Such  a  report  is  usually 
introduced  by  the  word  ntt'J^D  it  is  a  reported  fact  that...., 
it  once  occured  that... 

Examples  ad  1:  Berachoth  I,  1;  Bechoroth  IV,  4;  ad  2:  B, 
Metzia  VIII,  8;  Gittin  I,  5. 

The  word  ^^3,  often  occurring  the  Mishna,  signifies  a  gener- 
al rule,  a  guiding  principle  of  a  law.  Such  a  general  rule  either 
precedes  or  follows  the  details  of  a  law. 

Where  it  precedes  the  details,  it  is  usually  introduced  by 
the  words  TiDN^^a  they  (i.  e.  the  former  teachers)  established 
tlie  following  rule  concerning.... 

Examples:  Pea  I,  4;  Shebiith  VII,  1.  2;  Maaseroth  I,  1. 
Sabbath  VII,  i. 

Where  the  general  law  follows  the  details,  it  is  introduced 
by  bh^r\  nT  this  is  the  general  rule 

Examples:   Berachoth   VI,  7;  Pesachim  III,  1:   B.  Metzia 

IV,  1. 

Remark.  The  Gemara  usually  investigates  the  necessity  of  this  ge- 
neral rule  by  asking:  ^K)D  "insS  what  is  this  to  add?  i.  e;  which  new 
cases  is  this  general  rule  to  imply  besides  those  expUcitly  stated  in  the 
details  of  the  law? 

.§  8. 

Paragraphs  of  the  Mishna  containing  a  generalizing  or 
comprehensive  provision  arc  introduced  by  h^  or  ^^n  ''all", 
'.'every",  "whatever".  Mostly  some  exceptions  from  such  a 
generalizing  provision  are  added  by  the  word  pn  "except".. 

Examples:  Chagiga  I,  1;  Kiddushin  I,  0.  7.9;  Gittin  II, 
5.;  Chullin  1,1. 

Remark.  The  Gemara  finds  that  such  compreliensive  provisions 
are  not  always  exact,  as  they  often  adtnit  of  exceptions  l)esides  those 
expressly   stated  in  tlit-  Jlishri  i.     Erubiti  27a;  Kid  luiliin  34a. 


Terms  and  Phrases  regarding  the  Mishna.  195 

§  9. 

Without  laying  down  a  general  rule,  the  Mishna  sometimes 
states  the  exact  number  of  cases  to  which  a  certain  law  refers 
and  then  specifies  those  cases  more  lully,  f.  i.  "there  are  four 
main  kinds  of  damages  to  property,  namely...."  B.  Kamina  I, 
1;  or:  "Marriage  maybe  contracted  in  three  ways,  namely...'' 
Kiddushin  I,  1,     Such  a  stated  number  is  termed  «2^''^D. 

Remark.  The  Gemara  finds  that  such  a  number  is  intended  to 
limit  the  law  exactly  to  those  cases  mentioned  in  the  Mi&hna,  so  as  to 
exclude  certain  other  cases,  and  the  question  is  generally  made  : 
'KO  't3iy?27  X3"JD  what  cases  are  excluded  by  this  limiting  number? 

^'\n  IT  Aba 

§  10. 
Another   limitation  of  the    Vlishna  occurs,  where  certain 
cases  are   enumerated  by  tiie  introductory  words  i^s  "these 
are..."  or  «^^  it   '.'this  is..." 

Examples:  Peal,  1;  Pesachim  II,  5;  Yebamoth  III,  3.  5. 

Remark.  Also  where  these  limiting  words  are  used  in  the  Mishna, 
the  Gemara  usually  asks:  'XO  'tiiyo!?  what  cases  are  excluded  by  this 
limitation? 

§  11. 

still  another  limitation  admitting  of  no  other  exceptions 
t  lan  those  expressly  mentioned, is  lound,  where  the  Mishna  points 
out  the  only  difference  that  in  certain  legal  respects  exists 
between  two  things,  by  the  limiting  phrase:  ...i<^i<....:"'2  ps 
"there  is  no  ditference  bet  ween...  and....  except  in  regard..." 

Examples:    Megilla  I,  4-11. 

§12. 
Where  the  Mishna   enumerates  different  cases  to  which  a 


196  Teeminology  and  Methodology. 

certain  law  applies  without  fixing  their  number  and  without  using 
any  of  those  limiting  terms  mentioned  above,  the  enumerated 
cases  do  not  always  exclude  other  cases  to  which  the  same  law 
applies.  The  Gemarauses  in  this  case  the  phrase:  T''^1  KJn 
''the  Mishna  teaches  concerning  certain  cases,  and  leaves 
others  to  be  added". 

Examples:  Tannith  14a;   B.   Kamma  10a;  Maccoth  21b. 

IT  fjS  IT  «^ 
§13. 

Where  in  enumerating  certain  cases  of  a  law  a  subsequent 
case  is  more  unexpected  than  the  preceding,  the  Gemara  uses 
the  phrase  •'jflp  IT  PIS  IT  s'?  "the  Mishna  teaches  not  only  that, 
but  even  this,"  that  is,  the  Mishna  intended  to  arrange  the 
cases  in  a  climax,  starting  from  that  which  is  plain,  and  adding 
that  which  is  more  unexpected. 

Examples  :  B.  Metzia  III,  4  and  5.  See  Talm.  B.  Metzia 
38a. 

Remark.  The  climax  in  the  arrangement  of  several  cases  is  also  ex- 
pressed by  the  Talmudical  phrase :.."ib^DN  K^x  N'yTD  ah  ,"IDNp  irV2D  i<b 
the  author  of  the  Mishna  states  here  a  case  of  "not  only";  not  only  as 
to.. .but  even  ..,  i.  e.,  the  Mishna  adds  here  to  that  which  is  unquestion- 
able (plain    and  obvious  enough)  that  which  is  more  unexpected. 

Examples:  Betza  37a;  B.  Kamma  54b;  Kiddushin  78b. 

.  IT  nDI^  y'\'S  ;''ST  IT 

§  14. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Mishna  sometimes  arranges  the 
cases  of  a  law  in  an  anticlimax,  so  that  the  subsequent  case  is 
self-evident  from  the  preceding.  This  is  expressed  in  the  Ge- 
mara by  the  phrase:  IT  "IDI^  "|''nx  j'^Xl  it  "that, and  it  is  unnec- 
essary to  say  this"  i.  e.  after  having  stated  the  law  in  the 
former  case,  it  applies  the  more  to  the  following  case. 

Example:  Rosh  Hashana  IV,  8;  see  Talm.  II.  Hashana 
32b,  33a. 


Terms  and  Phrases  regarding  the  Misiixa.  107 

§  15. 

Of  these  two  antithetical  terms  the  Gemara  makes  frequent 
use  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Mishna,  especially  in  questions 
of  the  ritual  law.  n'?nn^^  means,  literally,  as  for  the  beginning^ 
at  the  outset,  beforehand,  previously.  The  term  denotes  the 
question  of  law  concerning  an  act  to  be  done,  whether  it  may 
properly  be  done  in  that  certain  manner  or  not. 

inyi  (contraction  of  n^j;  ''SI)  means  if  he  has  done.  In 
contradistinction  to  the  former,  this  term  denotes  the  question 
of  law  concerning  an  2iQ.\,M ready  done,  whether  ii  is  valid  and 
acceptable  or  not.  * 

The  phrases  in  connection  with  these  two  terms  are: 

1.  n'?''nr,3^  l'?^2«  or  idJ  rh^rrdl  even  directly,  i.  e.  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Mishna  indicates  a  direct  permission  to  do  the 
act  under  consideration,  so  that  it  may  be  done  unhesitatingly. 

Example:  Tal.  Chullin  2a. 

2.  S^  n'^Tinn^  ]"*«  lay^'in  if  done,  yes,  but  directly  not  i.  e. 
only  if  it  has  already  been  done,  it  is  acceptable  and  legiti- 
mate, but  directly  permissible  it  is  not. 

Example:  Chullin  13b;  15b. 

3.  ''DlTStr  "I^VT  /S^  n'7"'nn3^  directly  not.  but  if  done  it  is 
right,  i.  e.  it  ought  not  to  be  done,  but  if  already  done,  it  is 
acceptable  and  valid'. 

Examples:  Mishna  Berachoth  II,  3.  Terumoth  I,  6;Talm. 
Berachoth  15a  b. 

4.  M^  ''uJ  13J?''T  even  if  done,  it  is  not  accepted  as  valid. 
Examples:   Berachoth  15a;  Megilla  19b. 


»  Compare  the  I'hrase  in  the  civil  law:  Fieri  non  debet,  sed  fac- 
tum valet.- 


B.     THE  GEMARA  EXPLAINING  AND  DISCUSSING 
THE  MISHNA. 

CHAPTER    11. 

Modes  of  Treating  an  Anonymous  Mishna  Paragraph. 

§16. 

The  Gemara  uses  a  groat  variety  of  modes  in  commenting 
the  Mishna  and  discussing  its  contents.  Generally,  the  com- 
ments are  introduced  by  a  query  which  is  intended  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  point  that  requires  elucidation.  This  method  of 
introducing  a  statement  or  explanation  by  (|ueries  is  to  some  ex- 
tent already  found  in  the  Mishna  itself,  as  TiD'^i^D  from  what 
time  on  may  we  read....?  Berachoth  I,  1.  2;  Taanith  I,  l;..Ti"'3 
how  are  benedictions  to  be  recited..?  Berachoth  VI,  1;'VII, 
3;...n03V...riC2  with  what... and  with  what...?  Sabbath  II,  1; 
IV,  1  ;  VI,  1;...  p:D  whence  is  it  derived...?..  inrSV..  inrs* 
which  are.. .and  which  are...?  B.  Kamma  II,  4;  B.  Metzia  V,  1, 
and  many  other  similar  interrogative  phrases.  But  in  the 
Gemara  this  method  is  more  commonly  applied. 

The  following  is  an  outline  of  the  ditferent  modes  and 
phrases  mostly  used  in  the  Gemara  at  the  outset  of  its  com- 
mentation and  discussion  on  the  Mishna. 

1.     Explaining  Words  and  Phrases  of  the  Mishna. 

§  •'. 

Such  explanations  are  mostly  introduced  l)y  the  question: 
t{<0   7vhat  is...  ?  or,  what  means ? 

Examples:  Berachoth  59a;  Pesachim  2a:  Kiddushin   29a. 

In  answer  to  this  query,  the  explanation  is  generally  given 
ill  the  name  of  a  certain  Amora.  Sometimes,  two  teachers  dif- 
fer in  the  answer;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  29a;  Pesachim  2a.  Where 
the  schools  of  B!vl)ylonia  and  Palestine  ditler  in  the  interpreta- 
tion,    that  dill'erence   is    usually  expressed    by  ...  lQi:nri   N^H 


Modes  of  treating  an  anonymous  Mishna.  190 

TltSN  Zi,T\T\hcre  (in  Babylon)  they  explain..,,  but  there  (in  Pales- 
tine) they  say...;  or...'im:nn  KDH  /^/?r<?they  explain,..  IDS*  'S  "11, 
but  a  certain  (Palestinian)  Rabbi  says....;  f.ex.  R.  Hashana 
30b,  Sanhedrin  25a;  B.  Metzia  20a.  Sometimes,  however, 
KD"  refers  to  Sura  in  opposition  to  other  Babylonian  schools; 
f.  ex.  Pesachim  42b;  B.   Bathra  61a. 

Remark.  Where  the  question  'XD  is  followed  by...  sO^b'N  ?/ ^(^ 
say,,  t  is  it  to  say... ."i  an  anticipated  explanation  is  to  be  rejected  as 
wrong;  f.  ex.     Berachoth  9b;  Kiddushin  29a. 

2.  Asking  for  the  Meaning  or  Construction  of  a  Whole 

Sentence  or  of  a  Statement  in  the  Mishna 

§  18. 

a.  "lOSp  iSD  what  does  he  (the  author  of  this  Mishna)  in- 
tend to  say  here? 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  generally  introduced  by: 
IDSp  ''2n  thus  he  says....  Example  :   Sabbath  41a;  Taanith  27a. 

b.  yotS'tt  ""XD   what  does  he  let  us  hear? 

Examples:  Sabbath  84b;  Sanhedrin  46b. 

Remark.  Different  is  the  meaning  of  the  question  yOE^o  'NO, when 
followed  by....1,  in  which  case  it  is  to  be  translated  by:  What  proves 
that....?  f.ex.  R.  Hashana  21b;  22b. 

3.  Asking  for  the  Object  of  a  Seemingly  Indifferent  or 

Superfluous  Statement. 

§  19. 

a-  SnS^n  '^^'ch  for  what  practical  purpose  is  this  (state- 
ment) ? 

Examples:  R.  Hashana  2a;  Yebamoth  39a;  Kethuboth  82a. 

b.  j^  yDtt-'Dp  ''SO  (abbr.  V'Dp  ""SD)  What  does  he  intend 
to  let  us  hear?    What  does  he  want  to  teach  us,  here? 

The  answer  to  the  latter  question  is  mostly  introduced  by 
...y'Dp  KH  This  he  intends  to  teach  us,  that... 

Examples:     Pesachim  89a;  Sebachim  85b;  Meilah  21a. 

c.  K"iD^D^  ''KD   What  is  this  to  say?  Why  teach  this? 


200  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

Example:  Nazir  13a. 

4.     investigaring  the  particular  circumstances  of  a 

Case  referred  to  in  the  Mishna.   ■ 

§20. 

a.  (i''p''DV  ''SISD  Of  what  case,  of  what  circumstances  do 
we  treat  liore? 

Examples:  Betza  2a;  B.  Metzia  125;  Gittin  3Tb. 

b.  '•01  ''2TI  (abbr.  Tn)  How  shall  we  imag'ine  this  case? 

Examples:  Megilla  18a;  Gittin  78a;  B.  Kamma  28b. 

Both  of  these  two  interrogative  phrases  are  mostly  follow- 
ed either  by  . . .  Ki3''^''S  if  to  say. . ;  is  it  to  say. . .  ?  anticipating  an 
answer  which  is  rejected  at  once;  or  by  a  dilemma... •'S-...'X, 
if. ..'I  and  if...t  presenting  two  anticipated  alternatives  to  either 
of  which  the  law  under  consideration  cannot  well  refer. 

The  answer  to  such  questions  is  introduced  either  by  SS" 
(^pDy ''N02  Here    we  treat  of  the  case....,  or  by...  S^"*"!!*  s'?. 

no  (i.  e.    not  as  you  anticipated,  but)  necessarily (we  have  to 

imagine  the   case  under  tlie  circumstances   that...),    or  by.... 
D^iy^j    however,    still  (i.  e.   notwithstanding  your  objection)    / 
say. . . . 

This  last  phrase  is  espoinally  used  wlien  one  of  the  altern- 
atives is  defended  against  the  objection  made  to  it. 

5.     Investigating  thk  Biblical  Source  of  a  Law  Laid  down 
IN  the  Mishna. 

§21. 

The  question  introducing  such  an  investigation  is  cither: 

1^  KiD,  contr.   j^iD  (abbr.   V'iC)  Whence  do  we  have  this? 

Example:  Kidd.  14b;  22b  and  very  often. 

Or  '^h^r^i  ""in  K:^,  fontr.  •'^tD  "'IIJO  (abl)r.  n'no)  Whence 
are  thf'sc  words  (Uiws)? 

Examples:  Berachoth  30b;  S.'ia  a.  v.  o. 

Both  of  these  questions  correspond  to  the  Mishnir  pj^, 
whence  is  it  derived? 


Modes  OF  treating  an  anonymous  Mishna.  201 

Correctly  the  question  h"}^  is  applied  where  the  source  of 
only  one  single  point  of  the  law  is  to  be  investigated,  while 
t^'TiD  is  used  where  several  points  or  provisions  are  under 
consideration.  But  this  distinction  is  not  always  strictly  re- 
garded. 

In  answer  to  this  question  either  an  Aniora  is  quoted  who 
points  to  the  source,  by  the  phrase:  X"lp  "IDS!  for  Scripture 
says....,  or  reference  is  made  to  a  Baraitha  in  which  the  law 
in  (Question  is  artificially  derived  from  a  biblical  passage.  This 
reference  is  introduced  by:   "iTii  for  the  Rabbis  have  taught.. 

Remark  1.  Instead  of  answering  the  question  of  pi12,  the  Gema 
ra  sometimes  repeats  tlie  same  question  with  astonishment:  !?|bj)0,  as 
if  to  say,  How  can  you  ask. such  a  question,  since  the  sourca  of  the 
law  under  consideration  is  obvious  enough  from  a  plain  biblical  pas- 
sage? The  original  question  is  then  set  forth  in  a  modified  form  by  the 
phrase:  JjnONp  ''Dn  pN  We  mean  to  say  (ask)  thus:...;f.  ex.  Megilla  3a; 
Sanhedrin  68b;    Sebachim  89a. 

Remark  2.  In  answering  the  question  of  pJO,  the  Amoraim  often 
differ,  one  deriving  the  law  from  this,  and  another  from  another  pas- 
sage. After  having  investigated  the  merits  of  their  different  deriva- 
tions, the  Gemara  sometimes  adds  another  biblical  basis  given  by  a 
Tana  in  a  Baraitha.  In  this  case,  the  phrase  is  used  :  n~i  Nn"0  XJm 
tono  but  a  Tana  derives  it  from  this  passage... 

Example:  Betza  15b;  Chagiga  9a;  Kiddushiu  4b;  see  Riishi  o  the 
first  mentioned  passage. 

6.     Investigating  the  Rkason  oh  the  Underlying  Principlk 

OF  A  Law. 

§22. 

Such  an  investigation  is  generally  introduced  by  the  query 
S!3yt2  ''XD   (abbr.  tD"D)    What  is  the  reason? 

Examples:  Berachoth  33a;  R.  Hashana  32b;  Megilla  24a; 
B.  Metzia  38a. 

This  query  is  especially  made  in  regard  to  such  anonymous 
Mishna  paragraphs  where  the  law  contained  therein  is  evi- 
dently not  based  on  scriptural  grounds, but  merely  on  a  rabbin- 


202  Teeminology  and  Methodology. 

ical  institution  or  principle.  But  in  regard  to  a  Mishna  con- 
taining a  difference  of  opinion,  the  question:...  "nKD^tD  "'SD 
"What  is  the  reason  of  the  dissenting  Rabbi  A?"  is  often  also 
answered  by  a  reference  to  a  biblical  passage;  f.  ex.  Berachotli 
15a. 

Remark  1,  Exceptionally  the  question  t3''0  is  found  in  Moed 
Katon  19a,  in  the  sense  of  >X0  pjy?  "in  what  respect?"  See  Rashi  on 
that  passage. 

Remark  2.  Where  the  reason  of  one  of  two  cases  or  one  of  two 
opinions  contained  in  a  Mishna  paragraph  is  clear  enough,  but  not  the 
other,  the  query  is  usually  set  forth  in  the  following  phrase: 

?ndi;l3  "kd  ....n^x  ....Dit^o Ko^K^a 

It  is  all  right  (in  the  one  case)....,  there  it  is  on  account  of but 

in  the  case  of...  what  is  there  the  reason? 

Examples:  Berachoth  33b;  52b;  Yebamoth  41b. 

Remark  3.  Sometimes,  both  questions  \2''f2  and  Cnjo  are  made. 
In  this  case  the  former  asks  for  the  underlying  principle,  and  the  lat- 
ter for  the  biblical  basis  of  that  principle;  for  ex.  Sabbath  24b.  The 
reversed  order  is  found  in  Betza  15b;  see  Rashi  on  that  passage. 

T.     Investigating  the  General  Basis  of  the  Particulars 
OF  A  Law. 

§  23. 

The  Mishna  sometimes  starts  with  the  particulars  ol  a  law 
without  having  stated  the  principal  law  to  which  those  partic- 
ulars refer.     In  this  case  the  (icmara  asks: 

....''jnpl  ■'Sp  SDTI  «:n  where  (on  what  basis)  docs  the 
author  oftliis  Mishna  stand,  that  he  here  teaches....?  1.  e.  to 
what  general  law  does  he  refer?  or  where  is  the  principal  law 
of  these  particulars? 

Examples:  Berachoth  2a;  Taanith  2a;  see  also  Shebuoth 
lYb. 

The  answer  is  introdmied  by  the  phrase:  "»«p  Qnn  "he 
refers  to  the  passage  tliere"....  (in  which  the  required  basis  is 
stated). 


Modes  of  trratixg  an  anonymous  Mishna.  203 

8.  Investigating  the  Authorship  of  an  Anonymous  Mishna. 

§24. 

The  Gemara  often  endeavors  to  trace  an  anonymous  Mish- 
na to  its  author,  i.  e.  to  find  out  whether  or  not  that  anony- 
mous Mishna  representsthe  opinion  of  a  certain  Tana  expressed 
elsewhere  in  another  Mishna  or  in  a  Baraitha.  Such  an 
investigation  is  introduced  by  one  of  the  following  phrases. 

a.  ...«:n  |S*0  Who  is  that  Tana  (author)?...,  Berachoth 
40a;  Yoma  14a;  Megilla  19b. 

b.  ...jn'^jnD  ''ID  or...^:D  jn^^rirsWhose  opinion  represents 
our  Mishna?...  B.  Kamma  33a;  Gittin  10a;  Nedarim  STa. 

c.  STI  'S  '"1  ?'':d  «n  Whose  opinion  is  this?  It  is  that  of 
Rabbi  A...  B.  Metzia  40b. 

d.  '':i^S2  s'?T  (H'^jniD  Our  Mishna  does  not  represent  the 
opinion  of....   B.  Kamma  32a. 

Remark  1.  Where  the  investigation  is  merely  problematical  with 
a  negative  result,  it  is  generally  preceded  by  NO'b  (or  NO^J),  is  it  to 
say...?  The  answer  is  then  usually:  ...XCn  ITDN,  you  may  even  say... 
(our  Mishna  agrees  with  the  opinion  of  that  Tana);  as:  |n'JnD  NDv 
XJn  'Sn  '3  ablf  is  it  to  say  that  our  Mishna  does  not  represent  the 
opinion  of  that  certain  Rabbi  in  the  Baraitha  ?  B.  Kamma  30a;  B. 
Metzia  2b;  Kiddushin  52b.  Sometimes,  it  is  also  phrased:  pn  KJD'!? 
N?DnD..'"lD  iK?'^)  Is  it  to  say, that  that  which  is  taught  here  anonymously 
does  (or  does  not)  agree  with  the  view  of  that  Rabbi?  Berachoth  25b; 
Betza  27b;  Bechorotb  28a. 

Remark  2.  Also  where  the  Mishna  records  a  dissenting  opinion 
of  the  sages  collectively  by  D'lOIN  D^DDm,  the  Gemara  often  investig- 
ates D'Mn  |XD»  Who  is  the  representative  of  these  sages  ?  f .  ex.  Gittin 
32a;  B.  Metzia  60b;  Sanhedrin  66a. 

9.  Investigating  the  Force  of  a  Comprehensive  or  a  Limiting 

TERM. 

A,     Comprehensive  Terms. 
§25. 
As  stated   above    chapter  I,  7.  8,  the  Mishna  often  intro- 


204  Termikology  and  Methodology. 

duces  the  provisions  of  laAv  by  general  and  comprehensive 
terms,  as  iiiiS  ^'^S  ,bb!2in  "T  ib^n  ,^3  which  terms  are  assumed 
to  imply  other  cases  in  addition  to  those  expressly  mentioned. 
Investigating  the  force  of  such  a  comprehensive  term,  the  Ge- 
mara  usually  asks  :  •'XD  ''''ins^  What  is  this  to  include?  What 
is  this  term  to  add? 

Examples:  Pesachim  8a  ;  Chagiga  2a  ;  Gittiu  19a.  See 
Erubin  2a-3b. 

B.     Limiting  Terms. 
§26. 

Where  the  Mishna  is  making  use  of  a  limiting  term  (see 
above  I.  9.  10),  the  question  of  the  Gemara  is:  '«SD  ''t3iyi2^ 
What  is  this  to  exclude? 

Examples:   Pescchim  76b;    Kiddushin  3a;  B.  KammalSb. 
10.     Investigating  the  Reference  o?^  a  Certain  Statement 
IN  THE  Mishna. 

§  27. 

After  having  laid  down  certain  |)r()visions  of  the  law,  the 
Mishna  sometimes  adds  cither  a  modilication  or  a  dissenting 
opinion  without  clearly  stating  to  which  of  the  preced- 
ing provisions  this  addition  refers.  Investigating  such  a 
case  the  Gemara  usually  asks:  ^''TiX  ^<'  which  ?  i,  c.  to  which 
of  the  i)reccding  provisions  or  cases  does  this  addition  refer  ? 
This  question  is  generally  followed  by:....t<D'''7^N  shall  I  say.... 
(it  refers  to  the  latter  or  to  the  former  case)? 

Examples:  Berachoth  Bib;  Kiddushin  46a;  Sanhedrin  79a. 

11.     QuALiFyiN(j  A  Provision  of  the  Mirhna. 

§  2N. 

\N'ith(jut  au  introductory  question,  tiio  Gemara  ollen  qnali- 
fies  a  provision  of  the  Mishna  by  limiting  its  application  to 
cei-tiiin  cinnimstances.     The  phrases  used  for  this  purpose  are: 

a.      s'?----^Z;S.-.s'^S  13 w  S'^  thrx  on/v  tanirht  this  in  reference 


Modes  ok  treatin(J  an  anonymoiis  Mtshna.  205 

to....  (a  case   under  that   certain    circunistance),   hit ..  (under 
the  different  circumstance  of...)  not. 

Examples:  Berachoth  42b;  Succah  32a;   B.  Kamma  28a. 

b.  S^....^;N....S'pim    only.... but...  ?iot. 

Examples:  Yebamoth  98b;  B.  Bathra  146a;  Aboda  Zara 
74b. 

c.  The  shortest  phrase  for  this  purpose  is  :  ....tT  «im 
provided  that. ... 

Examples:   Sabbath  58a;  B.  Metzia  11a;  Maccoth  6a. 
Remark.     Tlie  phrase  kSk    IJCJ*  vh  corresponds  to     the   Mishni(! 
phrase    oniDX  DnDT  r\i:iJ.  or  'DO^N. 

12.     Extending  a  Provision  of  the  MisHNA, 
§  29. 

Opposite  to  the  preceding  case,  the  Gemara  often  also  ex- 
tends the  effect  of  a  provision  above  the  limits  or  circumstan- 
I'cs  indicated  in  the  Mishna.  The  usual  phrase  for  such  an  ex- 
tension is:  ....  'i^''5t<  S^i<  tt-'DD-.-.J^^  ?wt  strictly.,  (to  the  circum- 
stance  stated  in    the  Mishna  refers  this  law)  but  even... 

Examples:  Berachoth  53b;  Kethuboth  23a;  B.  Metzia  34a. 

Eemark.  This  phrase  introducing  an  extension  of  the  law  is 
often  shortened  to  the  simple  word: .. .  I^'QN  or  Ip^SKl  and  even...;  f.  i. 
B.  Metzia  22b;  26b;  Aboda  Zara  41a. 

1 3.     Making  Conclusions  and  Deductions  fkom  the  Mishna. 

§  30. 

A  conclusion  or  deduction  made  Cither  from  the  contents 
or  from  the  wording  of  the  Mishna  is  termed  SpVl  (B.  Metzia 
8a)  or  S''pn  (Kethuboth  31b).  Such  conclusions  at  the  outset  of 
the  Gemara  form  generally  the  basis  of  a  subsequent  question 
and  are  introduced  by  one  of  the  following  technical  terms  and 
phrases: 

a i^'^'/S  hence...,   consequently...,  f.  ex.    Yoma  14b; 

Betza  9b;  B.  Metzia  37a. 


206  Terminology  and  Methodolocy. 

b.  ...f?3S.-.l  SCyta  the  reason  (of  the  decision  given  in  this 
Mishna)  is....,  but...  (under  different  circumstances  the  decision 
must  be  different)  ;  f.  ex.  Pesachim  9a  ;  B.  Kamma  47b;  B. 
Metzia  18a;  25a. 

Remark.  This  latter  phrase  is  especially  used  where  a  conclusion 
is  made  from  a  positive  statement  to  the  negative,  or  vice  versa.  Such 
conclusions  are  sometimes  also  phrased:  x>-  (Nn)  j'K...  (in  this  case) 
yes,  but...  (in  the  opposite  case  J  not;  f.  ex  Berachoth  17b;  Nazir  34b; 
ChuUin  13a. 

c.  ...nTDyDtt'(abbr.  ^"^) /lear  from  this,  conclude  from 
this  that ...  f.  ex.  Berachoth  13a.  Interrogatively  it  is  phrased 
n'^3''D  nyCw'  <^^o  you  not  conclude  from  this...?  Yoma  37b;  San- 
hedrin  71a;  B.  Metzia  97b. 

Remark,  r^"^  is  mostly  used  in  deductions  by  which  a  legal  prin- 
ciple is  finally  to  be  established.  At  the  end  of  an  argument  the  phra- 
se lo"K'  expresses  the  acceptance  of  the  preceding  conclusions  as 
proved  and  correct,  and  is  then  to  be  translated  by :  you  may  hear  it 
lierefrom.  it  is  proved  herefrom. 

d  ....^720  in  this  is  implied  that..,  from  this  follows  that.,.; 
f.  ex  Pesachim  45a,  Sanhedrin  66a.  This  term  of  inference  is 
often  preceded  by:...  •'^np'TD  since  the  Mishna  teaches..,  as  : 
'p'jDD-..  ""inplD  since  he  teaches....,  it  follows....;  f.  ex.  Bera- 
choth 43a,  B.  Kamma  2a;  or...^'?DD...*':np  S*^V..  ""^nplD  since 
he  teaches.... and  not....,  it  follows...;  f.  ex.   Kcthiiboth  90a. 

e mclX  nST  this   tells,    this   teaches   that ....  This 

phrase  introduces  deductions  of  a  general  principle  from  a  spe- 
cial case  in  the  Mishna,  f.  ex.  Berachoth  20b;  llosh  JIashana 
22a;  B.  Kamma  35b. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  GEMARA  CRITICISING  THE  MISHNA. 

Another  kind  of  questions  with  which  the  Gcmara  intro- 
duces its  comments  on  the  Mishna  are  those  of  astonishment 
and  surprise  at  finding  therein  either  an  incongruity  or  an  in- 
consistency, a  superfluity  or  an  omission,  or  another  difficulty. 
The  following  are  the  different  modes  in  which  questions  and 
objections  of  this  kind  are  set  forth  and  answered. 

1.     Finding  an  incongruity  of  Expressions. 
§  31. 

A.  Incongruity  in  one  and  the  same  Mishna  paragraph. 

...  2  D''''D1  "O  nnS  ''Why  begin  with...  (this  term  or 
expression)  and  then  end  with... (a  ditl'erent  one)?'' 

Example:  n-'ina  D'^'^DI  1^2  nns  B.  Kamma  27a.  Other 
examples:  Moed  Katon  lib,   B.  Bathra  17 b. 

The  answer  is  usually. •...•i2^sri...-ir''r!  ^V  /s  this. ..it  is  the  same; 
i.  e.  both  expressions  are  identical,  mean  the  same  thing. 

B.  Incongruity  of  Expressions  in  Different  Parts  of  the 

MiSHNA. 

...  ^:m  en-  «:ty  •'sm  ....^:m  Nsn  x^tr  ^so  (abbr.  b^'d) 

"Why  is  the  Mishna  using  here....  (this  expression),  and  there., 
(a  different  one)?" 

Examples:  Sabbath  2b;  Kiddushin  2a;  Shebuoth  5a. 

Remark.  The  answer  to  this  question  is  sometimes  :  Nnm  X3n 
b*Dp  Snm  Dnni  V'Cp  "by  that  change  of  expression  it  was  intended 
to  add  something  new  and  unexpected  here  as  well  as  there"  :  f.  ex. 
Kidd.  59b. 

2.    Finding  a  Tautology  in  the  Mishna. 

§32. 
The  technical  phrase  used  in  the  objection  to  a  tautology  is: 


208  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

•  ••irv.  ....irTi  'is  not....  (this  expressioh  or  case)  the  same  as... 
(that  other  one)?";  why  then  this  repetition? 

Examples:  Rosh  Hashana  23b;  B.  Kamma  lib;  Shebu- 
buoth  12b. 

3.  Objecting  to  the  Order  of  the  Stated  Cases. 

§  33. 

S"j^-,2....^an^^  «tr^n3....Njm  SiB'  ""XD  Why  does  the  Mish- 
na  just  teach  the  case  of....  first,  instead  of  teaching  that 
other  case  of... first? 

Examples:    Berachoth  2a:  B.  Bathra  108a;  Bechoroth  13a. 

4.  Objecting  to  a  Certain  Mode  of  Expression. 

§  34. 

a.  ..."^^n^b  ....  '•in'^D'?  n''^  r>^b  Why  does  the  author  of  the 
Mishna  use  the  expression....,  instead  of  nsing....  (that  other 
expression)? 

Examples:  Sabbath  90b;    B.  Metzia  2a;  B.  Bathra  98b. 

b.  ...''jn''^....'':rn  kits  ""SQ  What  does  he  intend  to  teach 
in  using  this  expression,  instead  of....? 

Examples:  Yebamoth  84a;  Kiddushin  69a. 
Remark.     The  answer  to  such  an    objection  is  often:  33J<  nrhD 
T'Dp  n^miN  (In  using  tliis  expression)  he  lets  us  hear  something  by 
the  way,  namely...  ;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  2a. 

5.     Objecting  to  a  Certain  Limitation  of  a  Provision  in 
the    Mishna. 

§  3.'). 

••DJ  '^'•DK--..  «"'"l''«  ''8D  Why  Just  teacliing.... since  the  law 
applies  also  to.... ? 

Examples:    Pesachira  50b:  Gittin  34b:  B.  Bathra  .'■)9b. 

6.      PiNDLNG  AN  OMISSION  OF  A  DISTINCTION  HETWEli.N  TWO  CaSES. 

§  36. 

The  objection  to  such  an  omission  is  generally  phrased  in 
the  following  way: 


The  Gemara  criticising  the  Mishna.  209 

"The  Mishna  decides  here. ...  without  distinguishing  be- 
tween.... and...  ;it  is  right...  (concerning  the  one  case), but  why 
should  the  law  apply  also  to.. ..(the  other  case)?" 

Examples:  Succah  29b;  Gittin  10b;  Sanhedrin  18b. 

7.  Finding  an  Bxpress[on  to  be  Incorrect  or  too  Indefinite, 

§  37. 

"iriyi  Kp^D  (abbr.  T'D)  Does  this  enter  your  mind?  i.  e.,do 
you  indeed  mean  to  say  this? 

Examples;  Yoma  67b;  Pesachim  42b:  Kiddushin  29a. 
The  corrected  version  is  then  usually  introduced  by;    t<^i< 
•  SD''K  but  rather  say.... 

8.     Finding  a  Term  or  Provision  to  be  out  of  Place. 

§  38. 

""•Dty  ">31  (ND  Who  mentioned  the  name  of  this?  i.  e.  what 
has  this  to  do  here?  how  is  this  to  be  mentioned  in  this  con- 
nection? 

Examples.  Sabbath  57  a,    Pesachim  8b,  Nazir  4a. 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  generally  introduced  by  the 
phrase:  "iDSp  '•an  thus  he  means  to  say,  or  by  :  K"iDn''D  ''"I'lDn 
••jrip  "'^m  something  is  omitted  here  which  must  be  supplied 
by  construction,  namely.... 

9.     Finding  a  Certain  Provision  of  the  Mishna  Unnecessary, 
being  too  Plain  and  Obvious  to  be  expressly  Mentioned. 

§39. 

{<ia«HyB  "this  is  too  plain!"  i.  e.,  why  make  this  provision 
for  a  case  which  is  so  plain  ?  why  state  that  which  is  a  mat- 
ter of  course? 

Examples:  Berachoth  20b;  47b;  Pesachim  21b;  Megilla  25a. 

The  full  phrase  of  this  elliptical  expression  is   t^D  XD'^iys 


210  Terminology  AND  Methodology. 

S"*ii2''i3^  it  is  too  plain,  why  then  expressly  say  (teach)  it?  f.  ex. 
Nedarim  16a. 

In  answer  to  this  objection,  the  Gemara  generally  tries  to 
show  that  under  certain  circumstances  the  provision  under  consi- 
deration is  not  as  plain  and  self-evident  as  it  appears  to  be  ;  or 
that  it  was  needed  in  order  to  prevent  some  possible  misunder- 
standing in  the  application  of  the  general  law.  Such  an  answer 
is  mostly  phrased  either: 

....  (pi^)  X^S  W1^  i<^  it  is  not  so  (plain),  as  it  is  needed 
for  the  case...;or:...  SJ''i2t<  "ri>n  Upbo  yi'i^i'i'^is  it  was  necessary 
to  state  this,  since  you  might  have  misunderstood  me  to  say... ; 
or:  yi2p....SI2''m'inD  what  you  might  have  supposed  is  that....; 
therefore  the  author  informs  us  (of  this  provision). 

Remark.  Different  from  this  meaning  of  the  word  NtS'K'B,  as  an 
elliptical  expression  of  astonishment  and  objection  is  tliat,  when  llie 
word  precedes  a  propounded  question  of  problem,  where  two  cases 
are  set  forth  one  of  which  is  plain  and  obvious  enough,  but  not  the 
other.  In  such  a  connection  the  word  is  simply  a  statement  of  self- 
evidence,  and  is  to  be  translated  by:  this  case  is  clear  and  plain,  but 
(my  question  concerns  that  other  case);, f.  ex.  Berachoth  12a;  B.  Kamma 
8b;  Kiddushin  8b.  This  kind  of  {<l2't'D  is  generally  explained  in  Rashi's 
commentary  by  the  remark  Nriin'J2  "in  calmness"  i.  e.  to  be  read  here 
not  as  a  question  but  in  a  calm  manner  as  a  plain  statement,  while  the 
other  kind  of  XtD^JJ'D  is  explained  by  n'0n3  "in  astonishment".  As  a 
simple  statement  preceding  a  question  of  doubt  and  problem,  the  term 
XtS'K'a  is  sometimes  supplied  in  the  Talmud  by  the  word  ''^  "this  case 
is  plain  to  me";  f.  ex.  Sabbath  3b;  Megillah  3b. 

10.  PiNDiN'G  AN  Unnecessary  Repetition  of  the  Same  Provision 

ALREADY  STATED  ELSEWHERE. 
§  40. 

The  question  objecting  to  such  a  repetition  is  phrased: 
a.     (s:d''T  «in)    Kr:n  V'Dp  ■'ND    What  does  he  inform  us 

here,  since  I  have  already  once  before  been  inibrmed  thereof  in 

another  passage  of  the  Mishna? 


The  Gemara  criticising  the  Mishna.  21 1 

Examples:  Berachoth  50a;  Kethuboth  42a;  65b, 

b.  SJD''T  Sin  i<rjn  (Wn)  But  I  learned  this  already  once 
before.... 

Examples:    Sabbath  89b;  B.  Metzia  55a;  Sanhedrin  20b. 

c.  ...n*»^  S*jn  Sn  ^b  -D^  in  sn  Why  do  I  need  this  again, 
since  he  taught  this  already  once  before?  Example:  Gittin  15a. 

The  answer  is  introdnced  in  different  ways  according  to 
its  different  nature: 

a.     ...V'Dp  Mm  this  he  intends  to  inform  us  here,  that.... 

b n*'^  S3'''^t01tS  «3"'D  on  account  of  the  addition  to  be 

made  here,  this  repetition  was  necessary. 

c.  ...fc<3^"iX  it  was  necessary  (to  repeat  here  this  provi- 
sion), since.... 

d.  h"Dp  ..  SraS  m-  ^«nD  ■'«  if  to  derive  it  from  that 
other  Mishna,  1  might  have  supposed  that....,  therefore  here 
the  additional  information. 

Remark.  Where  a  similar  provision  is  found  in  two  Masechtoth 
concerning  different,  though  analogous,  cases,  tlie  question  of  unne- 
cessary repetition  is  not  raised,  but  the  Gemara  simply  states: 

•  •••Xanyi  ^J13  ^Sn  "^....''2}  'IDJ  |jni  also  in  reference  to.... the  Mishna 
provides  for  a  case  similar  to  this,  but  both  of  these  provisions  are 
necessary,  for.... 

Examples:   Kiddushin  50a;  Gittin  74a;   B.  Metzia  119a. 

11.     Finding  in  a  Mishna  an  Unnecessary  Abundance  of 
Anat^ogous  Cases. 

§41. 

a.  ''b  ntlb  ''in  ^3  Why  are  all  these  cases  needed? 
Examples:  Succah  17a;  Kethuboth  23b;  Bechoroth  2a. 

b.  (-|n  lJ''''n)  ''b  n^b  in  sn  Why  is  this  case  still  added 
(since  both  cases  are  identical)? 

Examples:   Yebamoth  23b;  Kiddushin  65a;  Shebuoth  2Yb. 

c.  ..."'inD^  n**^  nD^T  ..•'':nob  n^b  r\12b  Why  does  he  need 
to  teach... and  then  teach  again...? 

Examples:  B.  Metzia  33b;  Shebuoth  27b;  Kiddushin  60b. 
The  answer,  always  introduced  by  K^''"!^    "it  is  necessary" 


212  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

or  i2''T^  "all  the  mentioned  cases  are  necessary",  generally  at- 
tempts to  show  that  with  each  of  the  stated  cases  a  peculiar 
circumstance  is  connected  on  account  of  which  the  analogy 
with  the  other  case  might  have  been  objected  toj  hence  the  ex- 
press statement  of  all  cases.  The  phraseology  of  this  answer  is 
mostly:  h"l2p  ..•  W^DK  mn  •••  Wn  ""ST  lor  if  the  author  had 
only  taught...  (that  other  case)  I  might  have  supposed....;  the- 
refore he  lets  us  hear  this. 

Remark.  The  question  "why  are  all  these  cases  needed?"  is  some- 
times omitted  and  the  Gemare  starts  with  the  explanation:  ^0^^^1  it 
was  necessary  (to  state  all  these  cases),  since. ..;  f.  ex.  Sabbath  122a; 
Kiddushin  50b;  B.  Kamma  33b. 

12.     Finding  one  of  two  Cases  Superfluous,  since  a  fortiori 
Implied  in  the  Other. 

§42. 

The  question  based  on  the  argument  a  fortiori  is  generally 

phrased:  (pty  ^3  «^)  s^y2!3  ...(S3n)  ...n-iDK  ...(cnn  nDi)Kntrn 

if  (there  in  the  one  case)  you  say...  (that  the  decision 
is...)  can  it  here  (in  our  case)  be  questionable  ?  i.  e.,  is  it  not 
here  the  more  so,  why  then  state  the  other  case? 

Examples:  Rosh  Hashana  o2b;  Pesachim  55b;  Yebamoth 
30a;  Shebuoth  o2b. 

Remark.  Tlie  answer  to  this  objection  is  sometimes,  that  the 
Mishna  intended  to  arrange  cases  in  a  climax  (1T  PjX  If  sb,  Rosh  Hashana 
32b),  or  in  an  anticlimax  (it  "l^li?  "yXi  psi  1T>  Kethuboth  58a).  Concern  • 
ing  these  two  phrases  see  above  §  13  and  §  14. 

13.     Finding  an  Omission  of  Cases  where  the  Mishna  ex- 
pressly Limits  their  Number. 
§43. 

a.  ...''Ci  ''ITh^  (or  ''jnji)  should  not  the  author  also  have 
added  the  case  of...? 

Examples:  B.  Metzia  55a;  Yehumoth  53a;  Zcbachim  49b. 


Thk  Gemara  Criticising  the  Mishna.  218 

b SD^K  Sm  (S3''^)  i<b  im  are  there  not  more   cases? 

but  behold,  there  is  the  case  of....  (which  is  not  mentioned). 

Examples:  Gittin  9b;  86a;  Chullin  42a;  Menachoth  T4b. 
14.  Finding  a  General  Rule  of  Law  not  Cover    g  all  gases, 

§44. 

•  •••■'■in  Xin  8^^31  Is  this  a  general  rule  ?  behold  the  case 
of...  (to  which  it  does  not  apply.) 

Examples:  Kiddushin  34a;  66b;  Temurah  14a;  Chullin  59a. 

15.     Finding  a  Decision  of  the  Mishna  not  in  Accordanck 
WITH  AN  Established  Principle. 

§45. 

....Sm ''SCK  or  •'KDSi  Why  so  ?  How  is  this?  Is  this  not 
against  the  principle  of...? 

Examples:    Berachoth  4'7b;  Betza  31b;   B.  Metzia  94a. 

Remark.  The  question  'XJ3X  is  sometimes  omitted,  and  must  be 
supplied,  f.  ex.  in  B.  Metzia  99a;  Gittin  23b. 

1 6.     Finding  a  Different  Decision   recjarding  two  Cases 
which  ought  to  have  been  treated  alike. 
§  4(). 

«£3''D  K:iy  ''«01  Xtr*""!  s:t:*  ^KD  what  difference  is  there 
between  the  former  and  the  latter  case  ?  i.  e.,  since  the  two 
cases  mentioned,  in  the  Mishna  are  seemingly  alike,  why  does 
the  decision  in  the  one  case  differ  from  that  in  the  other? 

Examples:  B,  Metzia  65b;  B.  Bathra  20a;  Kiddushin  64a. 

17.     Finding  an  Inconsistency  of  Principles  in  one  and  thr 
same  Mishna  Paragraph. 
§4Y. 
The  phraseology  mostly  used  in  such  objection  of  inconsist- 
ency is: 

....  SD^« ....  n^DKi...  Ktt^s....n-iaN,  «^t:'p  ssi:  sn  is  this 

not  self-contradictory  ?  you  say  ...hence....  and  then  you  say.... 
hence...?  i.  e.,  the  underlying  principle  or  the  consequence  of 
one  part  of  this  Mishna  contradicts  that  of  the  other  part. 


214  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

Examples:  Berachotli  50a,  B.  Kamiiia  39,  B.  Metzia  31a. 

When  the  self-coutradictioii  is  more  obvious,  the  objection 
is  simply  phrased: 

....Stt'^*^  niDS  Sm  but  did  you  not  say  in  the  first  part...? 

Examples:     Betza  31b;  Moed  Katon  13a;  Gittin  21b. 

Remark.  In  answer  to  such  an  objection,  the  Gemara  usually  at- 
tempts to  reconcile  the  contradictory  members  of  the  Mishna.  Some- 
times, however,  the  contradiction  is  admitted  by  th?  ohrase:  ^D  N">3n 
IT  nJK*  kS  it  njCB'  verily,  (or,  here  is  a  break!)  he  who  taught  this  part 
did  not  toach  the  other;  i.  e.,  this  Mishna  does  not  represent  the  opinion 
of  one  author,  but  the  opposite  opinions  of  two  diflFerent  teachers;  f.  ex, 
Sabbath  92b;  B.  K.  47b. 

18.     Finding  a  Law  Report  quoted  in  the  Mishna  to  be 
Contrary  to  the  Preceding  Law. 

§  48. 

As  stated  above  §  6,  the  Mishna,  after  having  laid  down  a 
rule  of  law, occasionally  adds  the  report  of  a  certain  casc(ntS'yD) 
in  which  a  celebrated  authority  gave  a  decision  in  accordance 
with  that  law.  Sometimes,  however,  that  decision  is  just  con- 
trary to  the  preceding  law.  In  this  case,  the  Gemara  starts 
with  the  question  :  '^^^\oh  ntt^yo  is  this  report  to  contradict 
(the  preceding)?  i.  e.,  instead  of  corroborating  the  preceding 
law,  it  just  conflicts  with  it. 

Examples:  Betza  24a;  Gittin  66a,  B.  Metzia  102b. 

This  question  is  generally  answered  by:  •'ani  KIDPID  •'^IDH 
"^iVip  something  is  missing  here,  and  thus  the  Mishna  ought  to 
read....  i.  e.,  the  Mishna  evidently  omitted  here  a  dissenting 
opinion  which  must  be  supplied  by  construction,  and  to  this 
opinion  the  report  refers. 

19.     Finding  a  Conflict  of  Authoritative  Passages. 
§49. 

Anonymous  and  undisputed  paragraphs  of  the  Mishna  and 
of  the  Baraitha  are  generally  regarded  to  bo  authoritntive 
(Sec  above  §  1).    But  the  Gemara  often  finds  such  a  paragraph 


The  Gemara  Criticising  the  Mishna.  215 

of  the  Mishna  to  be  incontlict  with  another  passage  of  the  Mish 
na  orofa  Baraitha.  This  objection  of  contradiction  is  usually  in- 
troduced by: ...  "•nrom  (contraction  of  ^ns  «3«  "'Dm)  I  raise 
against  this  the  question  of  a  conflict  of  authorities,  1.  e.  I 
find  this  Mishna  in  conflict  with  the  following  passage  in  another 
Mishna  or  in  a  Baraitha.... 

Examples:  Berachoth  26a;  Taanith  4b,  Sanhedrin  33a, 
The  answer,  mostly  introduced  by  :  X^DD  S^  this  is  no  dif- 
ficulty^ generally  removes  the  contradiction  by  showing  either, 
that  the  conflicting  passages  treat  of  different  cases  or  circum- 
stances (...|S3'l....]X3),  or  that  those  passages  represent  the 
opposite  views  of  dift'erent  teachers  ('2  '1  Km  'N'"l  8n). 

Remark  1.  Where  not  the  plain  Mishna,  but  its  underlying 
principle  or  its  consequence  is  in  disharmony  with  an  other  Mishna 
or  a  Baraitha,  there  the  question  inj^DIl  is  preceded  by  an  argument 
pointing  out  that  principle  or  consequence.  Examples:  Berachoth  17b; 
Yoma  14b;  B.  Metzia  18a. 

Remark  3.  The  introductory  phrase  M^DII  is  often  omitted 
and  the  question  of  a  conflict  of  authorities  is  started  simply  by  ..  .prim 
but  are  we  not  informed  in  another  Mishna  ...?  or  ...N'jnni  is  it  not 
stated  in  a  Baraitha  (differently)  ?  Examples:  Rosh  Hashana  27a;  B. 
Kamma  61a;  Gittin  23b. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

TREATMENT  OP  A  MISHNA  CONTAINING  A  DIFFER- 
ENCE OF  OPINION. 

1.     Asking  for  the  Reason  of  the  Dissenting  Teacher. 

§50. 

....'m  SDytD  "'XC  what  is  the  reason  of  Rabbi....  (the  dis- 
senting teacher)? 

The  answer  is  usually  followed  by  the  further  question 
Si3p  Wn  and  the  lirst  anonymous  teaclier  ?  or  jJ3l*i  and  our 
other  teachers?  i.  e.,  what  have  they  to  say  against  this  reason? 

Examples:  Berachoth  15a ;  44a  ;  R.  Hashana  22a;  B. 
Kamma  2:3b. 

2.     Asking  for  a  Counter-argument. 
§51. 

The  Mishna  sometimes  records  an  argument  of  one  of  the 
dissenting  teachers  against  his  opponent  which  is  neither  ac- 
cepted nor  refuted  by  the  latter.  In  this  case,  the  Gemara 
usually  asks  for  the  probable  counter-argument  of  that  oppon- 
ent, in  the  following  way: 

?(n)  'm  (2)  '^b  (S)  'n  n'^b  nasp  n'-Etr  Very  well  did  Rabbi 
A  argue  against  Rabbi  B,  What  then  had  the  latter  to  say? 

Examples:  R.  Hoshana  26a;  Megilla  27b;  Kiddushin  61a. 

:j.     Finding  two  of  Several  Opinions  to  be  Identical. 

§  5-'- 
After  having  laid  down  an  opinion  concerning  a  case,   the 
Mishna  sometimes  a<l(ls  two  dissenting  opinions,one  of  which 
does  not  at   all  seem  to  differ  from  that  which  h^d   been  laid 
flown  first.     The  (xcmara  then- usually  asks: 

KCp  KJn  li"'"'"  ...-'"I  (or  □"'DSn)  is  not  the  opinion  of  R. 
So  and  8o  (or  of  the  sages)  identical  with  that  of  the  first  men- 
tioned teaclier? 


Discussing  THE  difference  of  opinion  in  a  Mishna.     217 

Examples:  Berachoth  30a;  Sanhedrin  15b;  Aboda  Zara  7b. 
The   answer   to  this    question  is  generally... "in^T^  S3''« 
there  is  a  difference  between  them  concerning.... 

4.  Investigating  the  Principle  Underlying  the  Difference 

OF  Opinion. 

§  53. 

IZD  (2)  'm-.-niD  (K)  '1  ?^:^2^Cp  ^ND3  In  what  (principle) 
do  they  differ?  R.  A  holds...  and  R.  B  holds.... 

Examples:  Succah  16a;  Betza  26a;   Gittin  64b. 

Remark.  Where  such  an  investigation  is  problematic  only,  it  is 
introduced  by:  .,.-i3D  1?0V...-aD  nOT  'ibs'^:?  «n3  XD'S  is  it  to  say, 
that  they  differ  concerning  the  principle  of....,  so  that  one  holds  that 
...,  and  the  other  holds  that....?  The  answer  is  then  generally:  K^ 
•  ••'130  XD^y  xbl3T  No,  both  of  them  agree  concerning  this  principle, 
but  they  differ  concerning  another  principle,  namely.... 
Examples:     Pesachim  46li;   Nazir  62b;  Sanhedrin  23a. 

5.  Limiting  the  Point  of  Difference  between  the  Dissent- 

ing 'I'eachers. 

§  54. 

....bZn  ^^21....hzi<  ...2   npl'^na    the    dilicrcuce    concerns 
only....,  but  regarding....  all  agree  that.... 

Examples:  Berachoth  41a,  Betza  9a,   B.  Kamma  61a. 
Remark.     Where  such  a  limitation  of  the  difference  between  Ta- 
naira  is  to  offer  a  basis  for  a  subsequent  question,  it  is  usually  phrased 
as  follows: 

.  .   "n....b3N....NbK  ^rba  i6  ISO  IV  so  far  only  they  differ  that... ., 
but  couGL-rning — both  of  them  agree  that. ..etc. 

Examples:    Sabbath  132a;  Yebamoth  50b;   B.  Metzia  28b. 

6.  Inquiring  why  the  Dissent  of  the  Teachers  in  onk  Cask 

DOES  not  extend  ALSO  TO  THE  OTHER. 
§  55. 

^i'^hsii  ss-'D  ^"^^  ^y^bsi  s^i  «tyn  n:^  \sd 

What  difference  is  between  the  Ibrnier  and  this  case    that 


218  Terminology  AND  Methodology. 

they  dissent  here  and  not  also  there  (though  both  cases  are 
seemingly  alike)? 

Examples:     Yebamoth  38a;  Kethuboth  78a;  Gittin  65a. 

Remark.  Sometimes  that  question  is  phrased  shorter  :  Jl^fi^l 
(Xt;''13)Nn2  'DJ  Ought  not  this  teacher  also  to  differ  in  the  other  case? 
Ex.  Sabbath  39a;   Nazir  11a;   Yeb.  118a. 

T.     Finding  an  Inconsistency  of  Opixiox  in  one  of  the  Con- 
testing Teachers. 
§  5(5. 

a (S^irim)  |jnr;"i 'l  12D1    Does  this   teacher  hold 

the  opinion,...?  but  in  that  other  Misbna  (or  in  that  Baraitha) 
he  expresses  the  opposite  opinion? 

Examples:  Yebamoth  44a;  I'i'ia;  Kethuboth  56a;  Cliul- 
lin  100b, 

b,  ..,|:nn'l  ...'1^  n^^  Ti"'^!  Does  this  teacher  not  hold  that 
,.,,  but  in  that  other  Mishna  he  expresses  himself  <litlerently? 

Examples:   B.  Kamma61b;  Aboda  Zara  6b. 

8.     Finding  an  Inconsistency  of  Opinion  in  both  of  the  Con- 
testing Teachers. 
§  57. 

....-I3D  (3)  ..'-n  ....  -12D  (s)  ..'m  «-iD''nV 

Is  this  to  say  that  Ral)bi  A  holds  that  ....,  and  Rabbi  B 
that....;  but  from  that  other  Mishna  (or  Baraitha)  we  under- 
stand just  the  reverse, , ,  ? 

Examples:  Berachoth  17b;  Pesachim  49b;  Kiddushin  64b; 
Sanhedrin  21a, 

Remark.  The  contradiction  is  generally  removed  by  the  answer 
that  in  one  of  the  conflicting  passages  nt3^::'n  ncSniD  "the  position  of 
the  contesting  teachers  is  to  be  reversed",  or  shorter  -[IQ^X  "I  reverse", 
that  is,  I  correct  the  Mishna  or  Baraitha  by  placing  Rabbi  A  instead 
of  Rabbi  B  and  vice  versa.     To  such  a  correction  suggested  by  one  of 


Discussing  the  difference  of  opinion  in  a  Mishna.     219 

the  Amoraim,  another  sometimes  objects:  "[IDTl  H?  "you  do  not  need 
to  reverse",  as  I  have  to  offer  another  w^ay  of  reconciling  these  two 
passages. 

9.     Hypotheticai.  Conclusion  from  the  Opposite  Opinions  of 
Dissenting  Teachers. 

§58. 

•  ...(3)  "1  ^131^  ...•(«)  "^  ^-^nib  '\Dib  KtfcntTD 

If  you  should  find  (conclude)  that  according  to  the  opinion 
of  Rabbi  A....  (a  certain  case  must  be  decided  in  a  certain 
way),  then  according  to  the  opinion  of  Rabbi  B....  (that  case 
must  be  decided  differently). 

Examples:  Pesachim  lib,  121a;  B.  Metzia  40b;  Sanhed- 
rin  Y8a. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  orEMARA  QUOTING  THE  MISHNA  AND  KINDRED 

WORKS. 
1.     Terms  Used  in  Referring  to  the  Mishna. 

§  59. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  extraneous  Mishna  or  Baraitha, 
also  called  i<n''jni3,  the  authorized  Mishna  of  R.  Jehuda  Ha- 
nasi  is  termed  jTl'^jnt:  or  ljn:t^*a  our  Mishna,  and  the  author  of 
a  teaching  contained  in  a  paragraph  of  this  Mishna,  is  desig- 
nated as  7TT  SJri  our  teacher^  in  contradistinction  to  S"13  t>3n 
the  teacher  in  the  Baraitha;   f.  ex.   Moed  Katon  17b;  B.  K.   (ila. 

Quotations  from  the  Mishna  are  introduced  by: 

a.  ]jn  (contraction  of  ps  ''jn  we  learn,  study)  we  are  taught 
(in  a  Mishna). 

b.  Dnn  pn  n'e  are  taught  there.  This  phrase  is  mostly 
used  Avhen  a  Mishna  belonging  to  another  Masechta  is  to  be 
quoted;  f.  ex.  Yoma  2a;  B.  Metzia  9b.  Exceptionally,  how- 
ever, it  refers  also  to  a  passage  in  the  same  Masechta;  f.  ex. 
I'esachim  4b;  Maccoih  l(ja. 

c.  Si'^jn  (— 1i"'itt')  7^'<?  have  learned,  we  have  been  taught 
in  a  Mishna  (rarely  referring  also  to  a  Baraitha). 

This  term  is  used  only  in  certain  phrases  as  STjn  V'DD  ''S!3 
What  does  he  inform  us  here,  since  we  have  already  been  taught 
thereof  in  that  Mishna?  f.  ex.  Berachoth50a,or  «r:n  ''O:  ]:«  £]« 
we  have  also  a  Mishna  to  the  same  effect,  f.  ex.  Berachoth  27  a. 

2.    Terms  Used  in  Quotini;  the  Tosephta  and  Baraitha. 

§  «0- 

a.  SJn  one  has  taught,  without  adding  any  subject,  mostly 
quotes  a  passage  from  the  Tosephta,  f.  ex.  Pesachim  .^ob;  B. 
Metzia  28a. 

b.  ]321  Ijn  (abbr.  n'Ti)  our  Rabbis  taught ,  refers  to  a 
well  known  Baraitha,  especially  to  passages  from  the  Mechiita, 
Siplirji  iinil  Si|>lire. 


Quoting  the  Mishna  and  kindred  Works.  221 

C.     S''in  it  is  a  teaching^  refers  to  a  Baraitha  in  general. 

Remark.  Two  or  more  Baraithoth  contradicting  each  other  are 
generally  introduced  by:....-]i>K  N^jni-.-ITK  8<'jn....xnn  -:n  in  one  Ba- 
raitha it  is  taught...;  in  the  other,...  and  again  in  another.,..;  f.  ex. 
Maccoth  7b. 

3.     Different  Purposes  of  Such  Quotations. 
§61. 

1-  pn  or  cnn  ]jri,  at  the  outset  of  the  Geniara,  intro- 
duces another  Mishna  whicli  directly  or  indirectly  has  some 
bearing  upon  the  passage  of  the  Mishna  under  consideration ;or 
it  is  intended  to  use  the  latter  as  an  argument  in  a  discussion  on 
the  quoted  Mishna, 

Examples:  Sabbath  2a;  Pesachimllb:   B.  Metzia  9b. 

Remark,  pnni  at  the  outset  of  the  Gemara  as  well  as  under  a  dis- 
cussion in  the  same,  raises  a  question  of  contradiction  or  incongi-uity 
from  the  cited  Mishna  ;  pm  or  pni  or  pn  N7  '0  adduces  a  support 
from  that  Mishna. 

2.  SiFi,  at  the  outset  of  the  Gemara,  usually  introduces  a 
brief  quotation  from  the  Tosephta  explaining  or  qualifying  a 
certain  point  in  the  Mishna  under  consideration. 

Examples:  Berachoth  50b;   Yoma  19a;   B.  Metzia  28a. 

3.  Win,  at  the  outset  of  the  Gemara,  introduces  a  pas- 
sage from  a  Baraitha  in  which  a  difference  of  opinion  mentioned 
in  the  Mishna  is  more  fully  set  forth  with  the  addition  of  some 
arguments. 

Examples:   Berachoth  12b;  Pesachim  27b;   Maccoth  Tb. 
Remark  1.     t<'jnm  raises  a  question  of  contradiction  from    that 
Baraitha.'     K^JTO  or  K^JJiT  or  N^JniD  refers  to  tlie  Baraitha  as  an  ar- 


'  Exceptionally,  X^jnni  is  sometimes  used  not  as  a  question  of 
contradiction,  but  as  an  argument  in  support  of  a  statement,  in  the 
sense  of  N^JJIV  In  this  case,  Rashi  in  his  commentary  generally  re- 
marks: Xmn^J3  "in  calmness",  or  xny^D  "a  support",  i.  e.,  the  phrase 
N'jnn^  is  here  not  a  question,  but  a  calm  statement  in  support  of  the 
preceding;  f,  ex.  Moed  Katon  19b  in  the  first  line;  Gittin  74b:  Kidd,  (iOb. 


222  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

gument  tn  support  of  something  stated  in  a  discussion.  The  phrase: 
'3n  'DJ  N'jn  we  have  also  a  Baraitha  to  tlie  same  effect,  is  used  to 
show  that  an  explanation  or  opinion  just  expressed  by  an  Amora  is 
corroborated  by  that  Baraitha,  while  the  phrase:  ...T  n^niD  N'Jn  we 
have  a  Baraitha  coinciding  \yith  ....  is  a  reference  in  support  of  an 
opinion  of  one  Amora  against  that  of  his  opponent. 

Remark.  2.  In  quotations  following  after  the  phrases  ^nyJ3"11  "I 
raise  a  question  of  contradiction  against  this"  and  'TD'D  "they  object  ^ 
to  this  by  appealing  to  a  higher  authority"  the  terms  pn  as  well  as  K'jn 
are  always  omitted,  thus  leaving  it  uncertain  whether  the  quota '"Jon  is 
from  the  Mishnaor  from  the  Baraitha.  In  most  cases,  however,  this 
can  be  ascertained  by  looking  up  the  parallel  passages  which  are  mark- 
ed in  the  marginal  glosses  of  the  Talmud. 

4.  iiil  lin  (abbr.  -|"ri)  introduces  lonorer  passages  from 
a  well  known  Baraitha,  mostly  from  the  Tosephta,  Mechilta, 
Siphra  and  Siphre  which  stand  in  some  connection  with  the 
Mishna-paragraph  under  consideration.  Such  quoted  passages 
are  then  usually  explained  and  discussed  in  the  Gemara  in  the 
same  way  as  a  Mishna-paragraph. 

Examples:  Berachoth  16a;    Sabbath  19a;  B.  Kamma  9b. 

Remark.  "I'Tll  "for  the  Rabbis  taught''  usually  introduces  the 
answer  to  the  question  of  |^JD  or  )o"n  NJO.  (See  above  §  21.)  -|"n  is 
never  used  as  a  question  or  objection,  hence  not  ^"n  KHI,  but  instead 
thereof,  X"'Jnm  is  used. 

5.  "i"rn  Km'?  H^jn  ''what  we  read  in  this  Mishna  has 
reference  to  that  which  the  Rabbis  taught".  The  meaning  of 
this  often  used  ])lirase  is,  the  Mishna  before  us  supports  the 
following  Baraitha,   so  as  to  make  it  authoritative. 

Examples:     B.  Metzia  25a;  Maccoth  8b;  Kiddushin  29a. 

4.     Referring  back  to  a  Preceding  Quotation. 

§62. 

There  are,  besides,  two  peculiar  terms  of  reference  which 
are  often  used  in  the  Gemara  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  that 
a  quotation  incidentally  made  in  a  preceding  discussion  is  now    . 


QUOTING!    THE  MiSHNA  AND   KINDRED  WORK^.  223 

to  be  taken  up  as  a  main  subject  of  investigation  and  discus- 
sioii.     The  terms  indicating  tliis  are: 

a.  ID  "IDK  the  master  (teacher)  said  above 

Examples.     Berachoth  2a;  Pesachim  5b;  B.  Kamnia  33b. 

b.  XB13  (the  body,  the  substance,  the  subject)  meaning, 
that  which  was  mentioned  above  incslentally  is  now  to  to  be  the 
main  subject.  This  term  is  usually  translated  by:  it  was  stated 
above \  our  text  says;  returning;  to  our  subject. 

Examples:  Berachoth  40b;  Pesachim  IGa;  Sanhedrin  24a. 

The  difference  between  these  two  terms  is  that,  as  a  rule, 
the  former  is  used  in  reference  to  a  quotation  from  the  Mishna 
or  Baraitha,and  j<2i;i  in  regard  to  a  quoted  saying  of  an  Amora, 

Remark  1.  This  rule  admits,  however,  some  exceptions,  as  on 
the  one  liand,  "itD  "iiDX  is  occasionally  also  applied  to  a  saying  of  an 
Amora;  f.  ex.  Rosh  Hashana  20b;  Yoma  21b;  Gittin  12b;  on  the  other 
hand,  {<D13  is  sometimes  found  as  a  reference  to  a  Baraitlia  and  even 
to  a  Mishna,  especially  a  Mishna  belonging  to  those  sections  to  wliich  no 
Gemara  is  extant;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  18a;  Succah  14a;  Kiddushin  4a. 
See  Kashi  on  Succah  14a,  s.  v.  ^^n  DIK'O-  In  B.  Kamma  13a,  both  terms 
are  used  as  references  to  the  same  Baraitha. 

Remark  2.  Different  from  lO  "lOX,  in  ihe  above  mentioned  sense, 
are  the  phrases -|)D  "ilOKi  "for  the  teacher  said"  and  lo  "iDNn"!  "but  did 
not  the  teacher  say?"  which  are  used  where  in  an  argument,  reference 
is  made  to  a  well  known  saying  of  an  anonymous  authoF;  f.  ex.  Be- 
rachoth 4a;  B.  Metzia  6a. 


C.       M  E  M  R  A. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Definition  of  and  Phrases  concerning  Memra. 
§  63. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  teachings,  opinions  and  deci- 
sions of  the  Tanaim,  contained  in  the  Mishna  and  Baraitha,  a 
reported  teacliing, opinion  or  <lecision  of  the  Amoraini  is  termed 
Memra  (SiCO),  a  saying. 

This  term,  like  that  of  Amora,  is  derived  from  the  verb 
IDS  to  say,  which  verb  is  mostly  used  in  reference  to  the  ex 
pounders  of  the  Mishna;  Avhile  the  verbs  T\y^  and  ^jn  are  more 
restricted  to  references  to  Mishna  and  Baraitha. i 

Asa  characteristic  term  designating  a  reported  teaching 
of  the  Amoraini,  the  word  Memra  is  but  rarely  met  with  in  the 
Talmud  ;  f.  i.  Gittin  42b;  B.  Bathra  48a.  INFore  frequently  it 
occurs  in  the  post  -  Talmudic  literature.  In  the  Gemara  such 
reported  opinions  and  decisions  of  Amoraim,  especially  con- 
cerning legal  matters  are  generally  termed  Sh' t?iaati/ia{'ii.r\r\'^12'V 
that  which  was  heard  by  tradition,  f.  ex.  Berachoth  42a;  Sab- 
bath 241i;  Chullin  4fja),  in  contradistiction  to  A^adaifui^  a  re- 
ported homiletical  teaching. 

A  Memra  is  generally  introduced  by  the  word  ^dK  a  certain 
Amora  said,  related;  sometimes  also  this  word  is  preceded^by 
the  term  -iDHS  (contracti<»ii  of  lOSriS)  it  has  been  said,  it  is 
repoi-ted. 


'  (Jumpare,  for  instance,  the  two  modifying  phrases:  ..N^KWB'Ki' 
and  N~)K  pON  nS,  the  former  exclusively  used  in  reference  to  a  state- 
ment of  the  Mislma,  and  the  latter  to  a  teaching  af  an  Amora.  In 
connection  witli  a  Memra  the  verb  XJO  is  used  only  in  certain  plirases 
as:   ...NnX..."'3l!?DT  XH^  ^jnm  ND'N  "some  report  the  just  quoted  saying 

of  tliat  Amora   in  reference  to  the  following  case ";  f.  ex.  Beraclioth 

Hh;   Sanhedrin  !»Hh;  Ahoda  Zarah-^b. 


Phrases  conoerntno  Memra.  225 

A.     nOK 
§  64. 

a.  "iD8  preceding  the  name  of  a  teacher,  as  zi  "lOK,  gener- 
ally introduces  an  interpretation,  opinion,  principle  or  decision 
of  law  originated  or  reported  by  that  Amora,  and  not  disputed 
by  another,  while  IDS  following  the  name,  as  idk  2*1  indicates 
at  once  that  he  is  to  be  contradicted  by  another  teacher,  hold- 
ing a  different  view  on  that  subject,    as  ids  VsiDtt'l-.-^lDS  Z"^- 

b.  'Z  '^y\bz  "IDK  'K  ''il'?5  "IDS  refers  to  a  report  which  a 
disciple  or  a  contemporary  makes  concerning  a  teaching  which 
he  received  orally  from  its  author,  as  ^SlDtt'  IDS  nDn^  3"l  "lD8 
Rab  Juda  said  that  Samuel  said  (Berachoth  12a). 

But  ('1  rT'DU'D  or)  'B  DItS'D  '£  "IDS  refers  to  a  report  con- 
cerning a  teaching  which  he  indirectly  received  from  an  author- 
ity of  a  former  generation,  as  :  '»D1^  "\  DIl^D  pnT»  "\  "IDS  R. 
Jochanan  reported  in  the  name  of  R.  Jose  (Berachoth  7a). 

Where  a  different  version  existed  concerning  the  teacher 
who  reported  or  in  whose  name  something  is  reported,  that  dif- 
ferent version  is  conscientiously  added  either  by  rib  '•"IDS!  and 
some  say  it  was....  (Berachoth  4a) ;  or  SDTI^SI  (contracted  of 
SDTl  ''SI)  there  are  some  who  say  it  was....  (Berachoth  5a), 
or  DItt'D  nz  .IISDI  and  some  differ  therefrom,  saying  it  was  in 
the  name  of...  (Rosh  Hashana  10a). 

d.  iri'i'mn  •'IDSI  'Z  ■'jI^SI  'S  '':i^£  Both  of  the  two  teach- 
ers A  and  B  said...  This  phrase  introduces  an  opinion  con- 
cerning which  two  Amoraim  fully  agree,  though  they  mostly 
differ  from  each  other,  as  irT^mn  "'"iDSl  'rSIDU'l  2"l  Both  Rab 
and  Samuel  said..  (Berachoth  36b). 

B.    nons 

§65. 

The  word  "iDnS  f^  was  said,  it  is  reported^  especially  at  the 
beginning  of  a  passage  in  the  Gemara,  generally  introduces  a 
Memra  containing  a  difference  of  opinion  or  a  controversy 
(ft<ni1^S)  between  two  or  more  Amoraim.  Such  differences  and 
controversies  concern  either: 


226  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

a.  The  proper  reading  of  a  passage  in  the  Mishna,  a3 

]:n  nyio  ^rxi  icn  t3T  3i  loriK 
pn  nyiD  ij-k  iok  ksb  3t     B.  Kamma  37a. 
Other  examples:   Pesachim   64b;  B.  Mctzia  80a;   Shebu- 
oth  1 6a. 

b.  The  reason  of  a  law  laid  down  in  the  Mishna. 
Examples:    Gittin  Ub;  B.  Kamma  22a;  B.  Metzia  38a. 

c.  The  meaning  of  an  expression  used  in  the  Mishna,  as 

K'DD  IDJO  -IDS  31  1DJ0  -ions 

2-iyo  -IDS  b^<1nt^'l       Gittin  52b. 
Other  examples:   Kiddushin  60a;   B.  Bathra  106a. 

d.  The  final  decision  in  a  case  concerning  which  the  Ta- 
naim  expressed  opposite  opinions,  as: 

'313  snsbn  -lOK  ^siDK'i  p"n3  sriD^n  -los  31  "i»nK 
B.  Kamma  48b;  B.  Metzia  33a;  Sanhedrin  28b. 

e.  A  principle  of  law  not  clearly  stated  in  the  Mishna, as: 

'Di  Djn  -iDic;a  -ijdx  .13-1  n-i'3K  -idib'  "loriK 
'on  K'^K'D -IDS  cjDV  3-1        B.  Kamma  56b. 
Other  examples:   Pesachim  30b,  B.    Metzia  21b,  Sanhed- 
rin 27  a. 

f.  A  case  not  provided  for  in  the  Mishna. 

Examples:  Berachoth  25a;    Kiddushin  43a;  B.  Kamma  9a. 

Remark.  There  are  also  Memras  containing  a  controversy  with- 
out being  introduced  by  the  term  "iDnS,  f  •  ex.  Gittin  2a;  B.  Kamma 
3b;  Ab(xla  Zara  2a.  On  the  other  hand,  this  term  is  occasionally  ap- 
plied also  to  a  Memra  containing  no  controversy,  for  instance  Kiddu- 
shin 45a;  especially,  where  reference  is  made  to  such  a  Memra  in  order 
to  corroborate  or  correct  the  opinion  of  a  later  Amora  by  the  phrase:... 
'03  "ions  we  have  also  a  Memra  of  a  former  authority  to  the'  same 
effect,  f.  ex.  Gittin  Lib;  or...nby  -IDnS  Sn  is  not  a  certain  Amora  re- 
ported having  remarked  concerning  this...?  f.  ex.  Gittin  16b;  B.  Metzia 
29b.  Besidf's,  this  word  is  used  in  certain  phrases,  as  :  M^b  'JI^Dl  SH 
ions  S^bsD  sbs  -)DnS  B'n'D3  the  opinion  ascribed  to  Amora  A  was 
not  expressly  stated  by  hitn,  but  it  is  merely  implied  in  an  occasional 
decision  given  by  him;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  9a;  Sabbath  29a;  B.  Kamma 
20b. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

TREATMENT  OF  A  MEMRA  CONTAINING  A  SINGLE 
OPINION. 

1.    QuESTioNrxa  thk  Authenticity  of  the  Reported  Memra 

§  66. 

The  correctness  of  the  Memra  is  questioned,  since  the 
same  author  expressed  elsewhere  an  opinion  wliich  is  in  con- 
flict with  that  contained  in  this  Memra.  Such  a  (picstion  is  al- 
ways  plirased  :  (tOS''i<) nD«  «m  ''2n  'S  ^DN  ^01     Did  that 

Amora  really  say  so  ?   But  is  he  not  reported  as  having  said.... 
(somethino;  implying  just  the  opposite  opinion)? 

Examples:  Berachoth  24b;  Pesachim  30a;  B.  Karama  29b. 

In  answer  to  such  a  question,  the  Gemara  generally  tries 
to  show,  that  in  one  or  the  other  way  the  two  contradicting 
Memras  can  be  reconciled. 

Remark.  All  Amoraim  being  regarded  as  having  equal  authority, 
the  objection  that  another  Amora  expressed  an  opinion  conflicting 
with  the  Memra  under  consideration  is  generally  not  admitted. 
Where  such  an  objection  is  attempted,  it  is  rejected  by  the  phrase  : 
n')0"l  Xp  X13IIX  X"l33  how  will  you  raise  an  objection  from  the  opinion 
of  one  man  (teacher)  against  that  of  another  ( wlio  has  the  same  au- 
thority and  is  entitled  to  have  an  opinion  of  his  own)?  Taanith  4b; 
Sanhedrin  6a;    B.  Kamma  48b. 

Sometimes,  however,  such  an  objection  is  admitted,  especially  in 
the  case  where  the  opinion  of  an  Amora  is  in  conflict  with  the  gener- 
ally accepted  decision  of  a  former  leading  authority  among  the  Amo- 
raim. In  this  case,  the  objection  is  phrased:  ....sm? 'J^N  Is  that  so  ? 
but  that  other  Amora  (expressed  an  opinion  which  conflicts  with 
that  under  consideration).  Examples:  Berachoth  14a;  Moed  Katon 
20a;  Betza  9a  ;  compare  Rashi's  remark  on  the  last  mentioned  pas- 
sage. 


228  Terminology  and  Methodology, 

2.     Finding  the  Memra  to  be  Colliding  with  a  Mishna  or 

A  Baraitha. 

§67. 

The  objection  is  raised  against  the  author  of  the  Memra 
that  the  latter  is  in  conflict  with  an  undisputed  Mishna  or  Ba- 
raitha, the  autliority  of  which  is  superior  to  that  of  an  Amora. 
Such  an  objection  is  generally  introduced  either  ])y  the  phrase 
''^TT'D  they  (i.  e.  tlie  members  of  the  academy)  refuted  it,  they 
raised  a  point  of  contradiction  from  the  higher  authority  of  a 
Mishna  or  Baraitha,  or  ""'^Tl^K  he  raised  against  this  a  point 
of  contradiction  from  a  higher  authority,  or  ''^^bSl  2TD  a  cer- 
tain teacher  refuted  this,  or  simply  by  j^nm  but  are  we  not 
taught  in  the  Mishna  ?  8"':nm  are  we  not  taught  in  the  Ba- 
raitha. . . .  (differently)  ? 

Examples:  Berachoth  10b;  RoshHashanaGb;  B.  MetzialOo. 

Remark.  Such  an  objection  or  refutation  from  a  higher  autho- 
rity is  termed  Nn3Vn-  The  argument  of  the  objection  often  closes 
with  the  phrase  ^Jl^ai  XD^Vn  this  is  a  refutation  of  that  Amora;  or 
NDDVn  ?  ^JI^QT  Nn2Vn  i«  this  not  a  refutation  of  that  Amora  ?  It  is  a 
refutation!  (i,  e.,  the  point  of  refutation  is  well  taken).  Mostly  how- 
ever the  objection  is  removed  by  showing  that  the  Mishna  or  Baraitha 
referred  to  treats  of  a  different  case  or  different  circumstances,  and  such 
a  defense  is  introduced  by  the  phrase:  ...'D  l!?  ION  that  Amora  might 
say  (in  answer  to  this  objection)  tliat...;  f.  ex.,  Beracht  th  34a;  B. 
Kamma  14a. 

3.     Finding  the  Memra  to  be  Superfluous. 
§68. 

The  Memra  is  shown  to  be  unnecessary,  since  the  same 
opinion  which  the  Amora  expresses  therein  is  already  stated 
in  a  Mishna.  This  objection  is  phrased:  K^iin  V'Dp  ''XO  what 
does  that  Amora  let  us  hear,  since  we  have  already  been 
taught  that  in  the  following  Mishna..? 

Examples:  Berachoth  45b;   Taanith  1  Ou,  IJ.    Kamma  K5b, 


Treatment  of  a  plain  Memra.  229 

Remark  1.  This  objection  is  mostly  removed  by  showing  that 
the  Memra  contains  something  in  addition  to  the  Mishna. 

Remark  2.  The  question  V'Op  'NO  is  not  raised  where  the  opinion 
of  the  Memra  is  not  expressly  but  merely  impliedly  contained  in  the 
Mishna.  In  tiiis  case  the  Mishna  is  referred  to  just  to  corroborate  the 
Memra  by  the  phrase  N^Jn  'OJ  JJX  t)X  we  have  also  a  Mishna  to 
the  same  eflfect;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  37a;  Yoma  26b;   Aboda  Zara  8a. 

4.     Corroborating  the  Memra  by  a  Baraitha. 
§69. 

Such  a  corroborating  Baraitha  is  generally  introduced  by 

the  phrase:   '•3"  ""DJ  S"";)]!  (abbr.  ""^ri)  a  Baraitha,  too,  teaches 
thus;  or,  we  have  also  a  Baraitha  to  the  same  eflfect. 

Examples:  Berachoth  9b;  Taanith  10a;   Sanhedrin  23a. 

Remark.  The  question  :  "Why  does  the  Amora  need  to  teach 
that  which  is  already  stated  in  the  Baraitha  ?"  is  never  raised,  since 
the  Amora  was  expected  to  know  every  Mishna,  but  nut  every  Ba- 
raitha. 

5.  Corroboraiting  the  Memra  by  one  of  another  Authority. 

§T0. 

Sometimes  one  Memra  is  corroborated  by  another  one 
which  is  introduced  by  ...''Di  IDHS  we  have  also  another  Mem- 
ra to  the  same  effect.  Such  is  especially  the  case  where  the 
Memra  of  a  Babylonian  Amora  is  supported  by  one  of  a  Pa- 
lestinian authority. 

Examples:  Chagiga  24a;  Gittin  13b;  Sanhedrin  29a. 
6.     A  Different  Report. 
§  "71. 

Alter  a  Memra  has  been  treated  in  the  above  stated  ways, 
a  different  report  ("'IDST  t<3''S  some  say, some  report...,)  is  some- 
times introduced  m  which  the  Amora  referred  to  just  expresses 
the  opposite  opinion.     The  discussion  then  turns  the  tables,   so 


230  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

that  every  objection  which  was  made  to  the  former  report,  be- 
comes now  a  support,  and  every  former  support  an  objection. 
Examples:  Bcrachoth  10b;  Betza  13a;  Maccoth  3b. 
7.     Correcting  the  Memra. 
§t2. 

Stronf?  objections  having  been  raised  against  a   Memra,  it 
is  sometimes  re-established  in  a  rectified  form  by  the  phrase: 

...IDnS  "»Dri  IDHS  ''S  K^S   but  if  such  Memra  was  report- 
ed, it  must  have  been  reported  in  the  following  way.... 

Examples:   Berachoth  15b;    Yoraa  28a;  Kiddushin  lib. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

TREATMENT  OF  A  MEMRA  CONTAINING  A  DIFFER- 
ENCE OF  OPINION. 

1.  The  Difference  concerning  the  Correct  Reading  of  a 

MiSHNA  Paragraph. 

§  T3. 

Each  of  the  contesting  teachers  argues  for  the  correctness 
of  his  way  of  reading;  the  argument  being  based  either  on  the 
context  of  the  Mishna  under  consideration,  or  on  a  common 
sense  reason.  The  question  is  then  finally  settled  by  referring 
to  another  Mishna  or  to  a  Baraitha  in  support  of  one  of  the 
two  ways  of  reading. 

Examples:     B.  Kamma  3Ta;  B.  Metzia  80a;  Shebuoth  16a. 

Remark.  Sometimes,  both  ways  of  reading  are  declared  to  be 
admissible  by  the  phrase:  B>3nK'D  nb  ....''3m  1X01  .K'nnsrO  N!?....''jrn  JXD- 

"He  who  reads  the  Mishna  in  this  way  is  not  wrong,  and  he  wh' 
reads  it  in  the  other  way  is  neither  wrong,  for..." 

Examples:    Succah  50b;   Yebamoth  17a;  Aboda  Zara  2a. 

2.  The  Difference  coNCERNfNG  the  Explanation  of  a  Term 

OR  Passage  in  the  Mishna. 
§U. 

The  supposed  arguments  for  and  against  each  of  the  difter- 
ent  explanations  are  investigated  in  the  following  way: 

Question  1:  '3  '•:i^5D  IDS*  «^  ta"D  '«  ^:i^S  Why  does  the 
Amora  A  not  explain  as  Amora  B? 

Answer:  ....-[^  IDS  he  might  say...  (I  have  the  following 
objection  to  his  explanation..) 

Question  2:  ?ll^ST  and  the  other  (teacher  B)  ?  i.  e., 
how  will  be  he  remove  this  objection? 


232  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

The  answer  liaving  been  given,  question  1  is  again  direct- 
ed to  B:  why  does  he  not  explain  as  A?  This  question  is  then 
treated  in  a  similar  way  as  the  former. 

Examples:   Gittin  17a;    B.  Kamma  22a;   Sanhedrin  25a. 

3.     The  Difference  concerning  the  Reason  of  a  Law. 

§  75. 

The  practical  consequence  of  adopting  either  of  the  two 
reasons  assigned  to  the  law  by  the  contesting  Araoraim  is  in- 
vestigated by  asking: 

in"'^J''2  ^SD  what  is  the  difference  between  them?  i.  e.,  in 
what  respect  does  it  make  a  difference  in  the  application  of  the 
law, whether  this  or  the  other  reason  be  assigned  to  it? 

The  answer  is  always  introduced  by  the  phrase  :  J<3'»w 
...in^^r3   there  is  (it  makes)   a  difference  concerning.... 

Examples:  Gittin  2b;    B.  Metzia  15b;  Sanhedrin  24b. 

4.     Investigating  the  Principle  underlying  the  Difference 

of  Opinfon. 
§76. 

Where  the  difference  between  the  contesting  Amoraim  in- 
volves a  principle  of  law,  that  principle  is  investigated  by  the 
question  :  ^j'?S''?3[:  '•SD3  in  what  do  they  differ?  Or,  What  is 
the  point  of  difference  ?  On  what  general  principle  do  they 
disagree  ? 

Examples:    Pesachim  63b;    Gittin  34a;  B.  Metzia  15b. 

Remark.  Before  defining  the  diflference,  sometimes  the  points 
are  stated  in  which  both  sides  agree,  and  which  therefore  are  exclud- 
ed from  the  discussion.  This  is  usually  done  in  the  following  phrase: 
....T^Q  '3  'rba  xb  (N»by  "'S3)....N3'nt>3  As  regards.... they  (both  of 
the  contesting  teachers)  do  not  disagree,  but  they  differ  concerning.... 

Examplos.    Yoma  6b;   Prsachim  30b;  K.  Metzia  31 1». 

6.     Showing  Consistency  of  Opinions  in  both  of  the 
Contesting  Teachers. 

After  having  stated  the  difference,  the  Gemara  shows  that 


Mbmra  containing  a  differenck  of  opinion  233 

the  divergence  of  opinions  in  this  case  is  in  full  accordance 
with  the  opposite  views  or  principles  expressed  elsewhere  l>y 
the  same  teachers.  The  phrases  used  in  showing  such  consist- 
ency of  opinion  in  both  of  the  contesting  Amoraim  are: 

a.  irfOytD^  nrsi  they  go  according  to  their  principles, 
i.  e.,  they  differ,  each  following  his  own  principle. 

Examples:  Sabbath  34b;  Pesachim  29a,    Shebuoth  15b. 

b -''DyiD^  '2  '«:i^ST  n"'!:yt2^  '«  t'?S  Amora  A  follows 

his  principle,  and  also  Amora  B  follows  his  principle. . . . 

Examples:  Pesachim  29b;  Gittin  24b:  B.  Kamma  53a. 

Remark.  The  phrase  in^oyta^  HTNI  is  used  where  reference  is 
made  to  another  dispute  between  the  same  teachers,  while  n^DytO?  'Q 
refers  to  a  principle  laid  down  by  either  of  the  two  teachers  independ" 
ently  from  each  other. 

6.     Discussing  the  Difference  of  Opinion. 

§78. 

By  the  introductory  phrase:  j;Diy  Sn  (abbr.  D"'n)  Come 
and  hear,  or:  ri"'3^ri''K  or:  ■'j^fl'^D  a  certain  teacher  qv  they  (the 
members  of  the  academy)  objected  (by  appealing  to  a  higher  au- 
thority), a  Mishna  or  a  Baraitha  is  referred  to  in  suport 
(yT'D  or  sny"'D)of  the  opinion  of  one,  and  as  a  refutation  (KfiZTTl) 
of  that  of  the  other  of  the  contesting  Amoraim.  A  discussion 
then  usually  follows  with  the  object  of  rejecting  the  support 
or  repelling  the  attack.  The  result  of  that  discussion  is  ei- 
ther that  the  question  at  issue  remains  undecided,  or  it  is  decided 
against  one  and  in  favor  of  the  other  of  the  contesting  Amoraim. 
The  usual  phrase  in  the  latter  case  is: 

(.'2  •':'i^ST  -"'miD  snD^m)  i  xnavn  ?  'k  ^vhtr\  sn^vn  "is 

this  not  a  refutation  of  the  opinion  of  Amora  A?  It  is  a  refu- 
tation! And  the  decision  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  Amora  B." 
Examples  :  Sanhedrin  2Ya;  B.  Metzia  21b-22b;  Chullin 
28a.  Examples  of  not  distinctly  decided  discussions:  Pesachim 
30b-31b;    B.  Kamma  56b-5Tb;  B.  Metzia  38b. 


234  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

Remark.  Commenting  on  a  Mishna-paragraph  which  has  some 
bearing  on  a  well  known  difference  of  opinion  between  Amoraim,  the 
Gemara  sometimes  starts  with  the  question,  whether,  or  not  this  Mishna 
offers  an  argument  in  favor  of,  or  against,  the  opinion  of  one  of  these 
Amoraim.    The  phrases  used  in  such  an  investigation  are: 

a.  ...'Q^  n^^  y"D10  KOv  is  it  to  say,  that  this  Mishna  supports  the 
Amora  A? 

Examples:  Succah  15b;  Betza  11a;   B.  Kamma  62b. 

b T  KriDVn  'inn  it.l^'h  is  it  to  say,  that  this  Mishna  is  a  refuta- 
tion of  Amora  B? 

Examples:    Sabbath  9b;  Succah  15a;   Yoma  19a. 

T.     Tracing  back  the  Difference  between  Amoraim  to  one 

BETWEEN  TaNAIM. 

§  ^9. 

After  having  treated  a  Memra  in  accordance  with  the  above 
stated  methods,  the  Gemara  often  attempts  to  show  that  the 
same  difference  of  opinion  between  the  two  Amoraim  is  already 
found  among  two  Tanaim.  For  this  purpose  a  Mishna  or  a 
Baraitha  is  quoted  containing  a  difference  between  Tanaim 
concerning  a  subject  which  has  some  bearing  upon  the  differ- 
ence under  consideration.  The  point  of  discussion  becomes 
now  whether  or  not  the  principle  underlying  the  difference  be- 
tween those  two  Tanaim  is  identical  with  that  under  considera- 
tion, so  that  Amora  A  agrees  with  Tana  A,  and  Amora  B  with 
Tana  B.     The  phrases   introducing  ihis  investigation  are: 

a.  ''K:n3  i<12''b  (or,  8D''3)  is  it  to  say,  that  this  difference 
is  like  that  between  Tanaim? 

Examples:  Pesachim  .Sla;  Gittin  141);  Sanhedrin  27a. 

b.  "»i'?D''Dp  ('2VK  □'•«:n)  ...1  Snil'^fJD  KD''^  is  it  to  say, 
that  these  Amoraim  differ  according  to  the  difference  of  opinion 
between  those  Tanaim  A  and  B? 

Examples:  Shebuoth  25a;    Maccoth  lib;  Nedarin  5b. 


Memra  Containing  a  Difference  of  Opinion.  235 

Remark.  Like  other  investigations  of  the  Geniara  introduced  by 
ND^?  or  KD^J,  also  this  attempt  leads  generally  to  a  negative  result,  as 
it  is  finally  shown  that  the  principle  implied  in  the  difference  between 
the  Tanaim  does  not  at  all  concern  the  case  under  consideration.  But 
where  after  a  discussion  between  Amoraim  the  Gemara  simply  states: 
'X3n3  "this  is  like  the  difference  between  Tanaim",  or  N'n 'XJn  "this 
difference  is  ideiltical  with  that  of  the  Tanaim",  (f.  i.  Berachoth  23a; 
R.  Hashana  15a;  B.  Metzia54a)  that  statement  is  generally  not  disputed. 

8.     Supporting  Each  of  two  Contesting  Teachers  by  a 
Baraitha. 

§  80. 

Two  anonymous  Baraithoth  are  referred  to,  one  of  which 
agrees  with  the  opinion  of  one,  and  the  other  with  that  ofthe 
other  of  the  contesting  Amoraim.  The  phrase  used  in  this  case  is, 

'2  '^I'ib^l  HTIID  N'ljn  'N  •'il^Sl  nTlllD  K'-jn  there  is  a  Ba- 
raitha agreeing  with  the  opinion  of  Amora  A,  and  a  Baraitha 
agreeing  with  the  opinion  of  Amora  B. 

Examples:    Yoma  4a;  Betza  6a;  Gittin  18a. 

9.     Ascertaining  the  Authorship  of  two  Opposite 
Opinions. 

§81. 

There  are  Memras  reporting  that,  concerning  a  certain 
question,  two  Amoraim  A  and  B  differed  from  each  other,  one 
holding  one,  and  the  other  the  opposite  opinion,  without  clear- 
ly stating  which  is  which,  that  is,  who  of  the  contesting  Amo- 
raim holds  the  one,  and  who  the  other  opinion,  as: 

...nas  im...nDS  in  '2  ""JI^ST  '«  ""JI^Sl  ...IDns  it  is  reported, 
that  concerning.... the  Amora  A  and  Amora  B  expressed  differ- 
ent opinions,  one  holding.... and  the  other... 

In  treating  such  a  Memra,  the  Gemara  usually  fries  to  find 


236  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

out  the  representative  of  each  opinion  by  referring  to  another 
case  in  which  one  of  these  two  teachers  expressed  a  certain 
view  which  coincides  with  one  of  the  two  opinions  under  con- 
sideration. 

Such  an  investigation  is  always  introduced  by  the  phrase: 
...IDST  Sin  ''il'7DT  D"'\"lDn  it  may  be  ascertained  that  it  is  the 
Amora  A  who  holds.... If  the  argument  is  accepted,  this  is  in- 
dicated by  the  closing  term  CTlDn  it  is  correctly  ascertained, 
or  D"w,  hear  it  from  this. 

Examples:   Berachoth  45a;  Mcgillah  27a;  B.  Kamma  29b. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

D.     ASKING  AND  ANSWERING  QUESTIONS. 

Classification  of  Questions. 

§   82. 

According  to  their  diflereiit  nature,  the  questions  asked 
in  the  Taliuudic  discussions  may  be  divided  into  tlie  folhjwing 
classes: 

1.  Questions  of  investigation. 

2.  Questions  of  astonishment. 

3.  Questions  of  objection. 

4.  Questions  of  problem. 

Remark.  The  Talmud,  besides,  often  makes  use  of  the  rhetoric 
interrogation,  that  is,  that  figure  of  speech  which  puts  in  the  form  of  a 
negative  question  what  is  meant  to  be  strongly  affirmative,  and  in  the 
form  of  a  positive  question  what  is  meant  to  be  a  decided  negation,  as: 
isb  N^K   is  it  then  not—?  =  it  is  certainly  so. 

|3n  iib  '10  ^'I'e  we  not  taught  in  the  Mishna  ?  =  we  are  certainly 
taught  so. 

'3n  "lOK  ""10  did  he  say  so  ?  =  he  cannot  have  said  so. 

n"l3D  'D  do  you  think..?  =  you  can  impossibly  think  so. 

1.     Questions  op  Investigation. 

§  83. 

As  already  stated  above  (§16.),  the  Talmud  mostly  in- 
troduces its  explanations  and  investigations  by  a  query,  the 
object  of  which  is  to  call  attention  to  the  point  which  requires 
elucidation,  as  ''i<e  what  is  the  meaning  of,...?  KDytO  "'«D  what 
is  the  reason....?  j^JD  whence  do  we  have  this? 

Such  questions  are  generally  asked  anonymously,  while  the 
answer  is  mostly  given  in  the  name  of  a  certain  teacher,  'S  "IDK 
the  teacher..,. said  (in  answer  to  this  question),.. 

Remark.    To  investigate    a  subject  by  questioning   is  sometimes 


238  Terminology  and  Methodology 

termed  'B  n2  'in  a  certain  teaclier  asked  investigatingly  concerning 
this  matter  (B.  Kamma  7a;,  Kethuboth  58b;  Nedarin  aSb);  n2  ^''lin 
we  asked  investigatingly  concerning  it  (Berachoth  45b;  Sabbath  6b; 
Gittin  4b  and  frequently).  This  latter  phrase  is  especially  used  where 
reference  is  made  to  investigating  questions  asked  in  another  passage 
of  the  Talmud.  Also  the  noun  of  this  verb  >"in  is  occasionally  used, 
as  ^NIOK'I  3"n  nvin  the  investigating  questions  of  Rab  and  Samuel 
CBerachoth  20a)   san^  "3X1  nVIH   (Succah  28a;  B.  Bathra  134a). 

2.     Questions  of  Astonishment. 

§  84. 

A  question  of  astonishment, termed  niT'iin/  expresses  wond- 
er and  surprise  at  an  unexpected  statement  or  argument  just 
heard;  as:  '»J''S  is  this  so?  X^T  is  this  not  the  case?  "^nyi  i^p'^D 
does  this  enter  thy  mind?  i.  e.,  do  you  really  mean  to  say  this  ? 
t<"i3Dri"l  how  can  you  understand  (explain)  it  in  tliis  way? 
■•SC  ^Sri  what  is  this!   how  can  you  say  this? 

Such  a  question  does  in  general  not  expect  an  answer, 
though  the  latter  mostly  follows  the  question. 

To  this  kind  of  questions  belongs  also  the  counter-qucsiion 
in  which  a  question  asking  for  information,  instead  of  being 
answered,  is  repeated  with  surprise,  as  if  to  say,  how  can  you 
ask  such  a  strange  question,  as:  !j^JD  "^  ]blt2  (Megilla  2a; 
Sanhedrin  GSb),  !p>:a    ?|''^:c  (Chullin  42b.). 

Remark.  A  peculiar  phrase  expressing  a  question  of  astonish- 
ment is  :  nb  ^"iKp  'K»  nS  nxpTl  he  who  asks  (or  objects)  this,  what 
does  he  ask  (object)  here  ?  i.  e.,  why  ask  a  question  where  the 
answer  is  obvious  enough  ?  or,  why  raise  an  objection  so  easily  re- 
moved? YomaSOb;  Yebamoth  11a;  B.  Bathra  2b.  > 


'According  to  a  tradition  mentioned  by  Joshua  b.  Joseph  Halevi 
(Halichoth  Olam  p.  9a;  compare  Frankel,  Monatsschrift  1861,  p.  267), 
all  passages  of  the  Talmud  introduced  by  this  peculiar  phrase  of 
question  belong  to  the  additions  made  by  the  Suburaim. 


Asking  and  Answering  Questions  239 

3.     Questions  of  Objection. 

§  85. 

These  are  questions  in  which  a  point  of  difficulty,  disagree- 
ment, incongruity  or  contradiction  is  raised  against  a  state- 
ment, construction  or  argument.  The  Gemara  uses  different 
terms  for  such  questions: 

The  general  term  for  a  question  of  this  kind  is  S'^tt'lp  a 
difficulty^  also  used  as  a  verb  "'tt'pK  to  ask  an  objecting  question, 
to  raise  apomt  of  objection,  to  show  a  difficulty.  The  question 
is  mostly  introduced  by  the  interjection:  fc^ni  but  lo!  which  is 
often  prefixed  to  the  following  word,  as  pnm  bat  lo  !  are 
we  not  taught  in  the  Mishna...?  j<''3nm  is  it  not  taught  in 
the  Baraitha. ..  ?  "lonsm  was  it  not  said  by  an  Amora....  ? 
nnaxm   but  did  you  not  say....? 

The  answer  to  such  a  question  is  termed  j'TnTl  a  re- 
conciliation^ a  satisfactory  answer,  and  is  usually  introduced  b}' 
the  phrase:  ^''tt'p  S^  tnere  is  no  difficulty.  Where  no  satis- 
factory auswer  can  l)e  found,  it  is  indicated  by  the  closing  term 
j<^typ  the  difficulty  remains,  the  point  of  objection  is  well  taken, 
f.  ex.  Moed  Katon  22b,  Maccoth  5b. 

Remark  1.  "When  two  diflferent  questions  are  raised  at  the  same 
time,  the  second  is  introduced  by  ini  and  again...  (I  further  ask...); 
f.  ex.  Berachoth  2a. 

Where  the  same  questi'  n  is  answered  by  the  Gemara  in  two  dif- 
ferent ways,  the  second  answer  is  introduced  by:  NIO'X  JT'WNI  and  if 
you  wish,  you  may  say....;  f.  ex.  Berachoth  3a.  In  this  case  the  se- 
cond answer  has  generally  more  force  than  the  former.  Sometimes, 
however,  both  answers  are  introduced  by  this  phrase,  as  ...XD'N  D^yD'X 
...XO^X  n^yTXI  you  may  either  answer....  or  you  may  answer. ..;  f.  ex. 
Berachoth  4b.     In  this  case  both  answers  are  of  equal  force. 

The  same  question  is  often  answered  by  two  or  more  teachers,  by 
each  in  a  different  way.  In  this  case,  the  former  teacher  is  introduced 
by 'a  nOK»  and  each  of  the  following  by  nox 'Q ;  f.  ex.,  Sanhedrin  32 
a.  b,  where  four  teachers  belonging  to  different  generations  fR.  Cha- 
nina.  Rabba,  Rab  Papa  and  Rab  Ashe)  offer  different    answers  to  the 


240       Terminology  and  Methodology. 

same  question.  Great  ingenuity  is  in  this  respect  displayed  by  some  of 
the  teachers,  especially  by  the  rivaling  contemporaries  Abaye  and 
Raba,  in  showing  that  a  question  already  answered  by  the  other  tea- 
cher might  also  have  been  answered  in  a  different  way;  f.  ex.,  Pesa- 
chim  5b;  Kiddushin  5a;  B.  Metzia  52a. 

Remark  2.  The  answer  to  a  question  or  an  objection  is  often  re- 
futed, and  a  new  answer  is  then  offered  either  by  the  refuter,  or  by 
another.  In  this  case,  the  new  answer  is  generally  introduced  by  N7>^^ 
'3  "))0X,  the  word  NPN  bid  indicating  that  the  point  of  refutation 
against  the  former  answer  was  well  taken.  Examples:  Berachotli  80b: 
Pesachim  9b;    B.  Metzia  31a. 

Where  of  two  answers  given,  the  latter  is  refuted,  the  accept- 
ance of  the  former  is  indicated  either  the  phrase:  by  '31^E3  NmiiriD  N^N 
but  more  correct  is  the  answer  of  the  first  teacher  (f.  ex.  Taanith  4b; 
ChuUin  117a),  or  in  case  that  answer  had  been  given  anonymously,  by 
the  phrase  NIp'VlO  I^Jt^HD  NmiiriD  N^N  more  correct  is  as  we  answered 
at  first  (f.  ex.  Pesachim  17b;    Maccoth  2b;  B.  Metzia  3a). 

Remark  3.  In  questions  of  investigation  as  well  as  of  objection, 
the  questioner  sometimes  anticipates  an  answer  which  he  shows  to  be 
inadmissible.  Such  anticipation  (termed  in  rhetoric  prolepsis)  in 
questions  of  investigation  is  introduced  by:...  XOv'N  is  it  to  say...?  f. 
ex.  Berachoth  9b;  Kiddushin  29a;  Gittin  9a.  In  questions  of  objec- 
tion it  is  introduced  by:...NC)'n  '31  and  if  you  will  say  (  answer)...,  f.  ex. 
Sanhedrin  6a;  Kiddusliin  3b;  Gittin  3b.  On  the  other  hand,  where  in 
giving  an  answer  or  explanation,  an  objection  is  anticipated  which  is 
to  be  removed,  it  is  introduced  by  iDXn  DN1  (abbr.  ri  "N1)  but  if  you 
will    say  (object)....  f.    ex.    Succah    161)  ;  (iittin  lib;   B.    Metzia  10a  : 

Some  Special   Kinds  of  Objection. 

§  86. 

The  terms  t<''D'in  and  NHaTTi  are  but  species  of  the  general 
term  S'^tt'p  a  que^ition  of  objection. 

a.  Where  the  objection  consists  in  raising  a  point  of  con- 
tradiction between  two  statements  of  equal  authority,  as 
between  two  passages  of  Scriptures  or  between  passages  of  the 


Asking  and  Answering  Questions.  241 

Mishna  and  the  Baraitha,  it  is  termed  K'^DTl  (of  the  verb  "'on 
to  cast,  to  throw  against,  to  bring  in  opposition)  setting 
authority  against  authority,  bringing  authorities  in  opposition 
to  each  other.  Such  a  question  of  objection  or  contradiction 
is  generally  introduced  by  the  phrase  :  ...tQ"!  "'Jl^S  a  certain 
teacher  asked  the  following  question  of  contradiction  between 
two  passages....;  or  by  :  ...TirQIT  I  raise  against  this  the  ques- 
tion of  a  conflict  of  authorities,  i.  e.,  I  find  this  Mishna  to  be 
in  conflict  with  the  following  passage  in  an  other  Mishna  or  in 
a  Baraitha....  Omitting  this  introductory  phrase,  such  a 
question  is  often  set  forth  simply  by  :  ...pnm  but  are  we  not 
taught  in  (another)  Mishna...?  S''2nm  are  we  not  taught  in 
a  Braitha...?  (See  above  §  49) 

b.  i^Jl^TTl  (the  Aramaic  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  n^iltSTl 
an  answer,  gainsaying,  objection,  refutation)  signifies  an  ob- 
jection raised  against  an  Amora  as  being  in  conflict  with  the 
superior  authority  of  a  statement  in  a  Mishna  or  Baraitha.  It 
is  generally  introduced  by  '^yihs  iTID  a  certain  teacher  raised 
the  following  objection  from  a  higher  authority...;  or  n''3Ti^K 
he  objected  to  him  from  a  higher  authority  ;  or  :  ''3"'ri''D  they 
(the  teachers  of  the  Academy)  raised  the  following  objection 
(See  above  §  67) 

The  answer  to  such  a  point  of  objection  is  termed  i<^iJ"'B' 
a  difference  or  distinction^  in  as  much  as  it  mostly  attempts  to 
remove  the  contradiction  by  showing  that  the  two  statements, 
seemingly  in  conflict  with  each  other,  actually  refer  to  different 
cases  or  circumstances.  The  answer  is  generally  introduced 
by  :  ...KDn  ''iStt'  here  is  a  different  case,  or  by  :  ....onn  ••••jW 
here...  there...,  or  ....sn  -...Kn  in  this  case...,  but  in  the  other 
case....,  or  by:  ....|rpDJ?  ^KD2  K3n  here  we  treat  of  the 
special    case    that 

Remark  1.  These  distinctions  for  the  purpose  of  removing  a 
contradiction  a»e  often  very  strained,  and  are  in  this  case  sometimes 
characterized  by  the  Talmud  itself  as  Np^m  N^U'K'  a  forced  or 
strained     answer,    f.  ex.  :  B.   Kamma  48a.  ;  106a.  ;  Kethuboth     42b. 


242  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

Eemark  2.  The  answer  to  an  objection  is  also  termed  XplTD  (from 
pis  to  redeem,  to  rescue,  to  unload  ;  hence,  to  free  one  from  the  burden 
of  an  objection)  ;  as  "3NT  Kp^TD  B.  Kamma  14a.  More  frequently 
used  is  the  verb,  as  rh  p"lBD  Xim  rh  3'ni)0  K^n  he  asked  a  question 
of  objection,  and  he  answered  it,  Kiddushin  44b;  Gittin  53a,  B.  Kamma 
43b.  ;  or  n^  nrplQOI  ^b  'K'pO  he  asked  me  questions  of  objection, 
and  I  answered  them,  B.  Metzia  84a. 

The   Dilemma. 

§    87 

Objections  are  sometimes  set  forth  in  the  form  of  a  dilem- 
ma (termed  "jt^Si  riDD),  presenting  two  or  more  alternatives 
of  a  case  or  an  opinion,  and  showing  it  to  be  equally  objection- 
able whichev^er  alternative   we  may  choose,  as : 

a.  (S-^trp)  ...^«1  (S^typ)...^«  lirSi  no  «'/^«/  JS  thy  wisht 
i.  e.,  which  alternative  do  you  choose  ?  //....  (then  my  objection 
is  : )  and  if....   (then  my  objection  is  :  ....).' 

Examples  :    Sabbath  46a ;  B.  Kamma  38a  ;   Chullin  12a. 

b.  (S^iyp)  .../XT  («'«tS'p)  •..."'«  "'Dl  ''3''n  how  shall  we 
imagine  this  case 'i  if....  (then  my  objection  is....)  and  if.... 
(then   I  have    to  object....). 

Examples  :  Kcthuboth  72a  ;  B.  Metzia  21a  ;  B.  Bathra  T8b. 

c.  .../Kl  ....''i<  p^pDy  ■'SDj  of  what  circumstance  do  we 
treat  here 'i   if....    (objection),    and  if....    (objection). 

Examples:  Sabbath  30a,  Gittin  37b,   B.  Metzia  12b. 

d ''{<T     ....*»K    13Dp    "'KD     what  is     his    opinion  ?  If  he 

bolds   that....    (then    I  object....),   and  if  he  hoids....    (I  also 
object....). 

Examples:     Berachoth  3a;  Sanhedrin  2b;   Kiddushin  6b. 
The  answer  to  a  dilemma  either  shows  a  middle  ground  between 
the  two  alternatives,  or  defends  one  of  the  alternatives  against 
the  objection  made  to  it.   In  the  first   case,  it  is  introduced  by 


'  The  phrase  of  '^K'DJ  HO  is  also  used  in  introducing  an  argument 
in  defense,  proving  that  a  decision  or  opinion  is  equally  correct  which- 
ever of  the  two  alternatives  we  may  choose.  Examples:  Betza  10b. 
Gittin  43b;  B.  Metzia  6b. 


Asking  and  Answ^hiing  Questions.  243 

the  phrase  .  .1  KDnif  s'?  it  is  not  necessary  so  (namely  to 
choose  just  one  of  the  presented  alternatives),  for....  (a  third  al- 
ternative is  imaginable  to  which  none  of  your  objections  ap- 
plies). In  the  second  case,  the  answer  is  generally  introduced 
by  the  word  D^IJ?'?  which  in  this  connection  stands  for  □'p'lj;^ 
"f?  SD'^S  sti//  1 7naintain  (one  of  the  alternatives  with  some  mo- 
difications). 

Rejoinder. 


Where  the  answer  to  an  objection  or  to  a  refutation  is 
found  to  be  insufficient,  the  weak  points  thereof  are  set  forth 
in  a  rejoinder.   The  phrases  mostly  used  in  such  a  rejoinder  are: 

a C]1D  P1D  (literally:  the  end  of  the  end...)   anyhow^  at 

all  events^  that  is,  however  extreme  my  concession  to  the  suppo- 
sition of  your  answer  may  be,  my  former  objection  still  remains... 

Examples:     Megilla  3a;   Gittin  24a;  B.  Metzia  16a. 

b.  Where  the  rejoinder  goes  to  demonstrate  that  the 
answer  does  not  cover  all  cases  the  following  phrase  is  used: 

ID'^d''  S3^«  •'SD  ....2  ....3  nrn  you  may  be  right...  (i.  e., 
your  defense  is  acceptable  concerning  one  case),  but  concer- 
ning...  (that  other  case  of....)  what  have  you  to  say? 

Examples:  Pesachim  11a;    Gittin  4b;   B»  Metzia  3a. 

c.  Where  the  answer  is  found  to  l)e  based  only  on  a  dis- 
puted principle,  the  rejoinder  is  phrased: 

That  IS  all  right  according  to  him  who  holds..., but  accord- 
ing to  him  vvlio  holds....  (the  opposite  opinion),  what  is  there  to 
say?     Examples:  Berachoth  12a;    Yoma  3a;  Sanhedrin  3a. 

4.     Questions  of  Problems. 

§  89. 

Problem  is  a  question    proposed  for  solution  concerning  a 

matter  difficult    of  settlement.     The  pages   of  the  Talmud  are 

full  of  such  questions.     The  doubt  involved  in  those   questions 

concern  there   either  the  correct  reading,    or  the  proper  con- 


244  Terminology  and  Methodology 

struction  and  meaning  of  th6  Mishna,  or  the  decision  of  a  case 
not  provided  for  in  the  Mishna. 

Such  questions  are  termed  r\V]^Z  problems,  questions  of 
doubt,  and  are  generally  introduced  by  "'Jl^B  "'y^  a  certain  tea- 
cher asked  the  following  difficult  question,  he  propounded  a 
problem  for  solution,  or  "lil^SD  "'JI^S  "'^2  A  asked  B  to  solve 
the  following  question  ;  or  when  such  a  question  was  asked 
anonymously  in  a  school,  it  is  introduced  by:  in^  i<''J?3''S  the 
following  problem  was  proposed  by  them  (i.  e.  by  the  members 
of  the    academy). 

The  point  of  the  question  is  generally  followed  by  the 
interrogative  iriD  how  is  it  ?  The  two  sides  of  the  question 
are  usually  set   forth    by  :    ....KD^l    1«     ....iriDK   ''D    shall 

we  say....    or   perhaps Sometimes,    however,    the  phrase 

ir^DS   ''D   is   omitted,  and   must  be  supplied. 

Examples  of  problems :  1.  Concerning  the  proper 
reading  or  construction  of  the  Mishna:  Sabbath  36b  ; 
Yoma   41b  ;   B.    Kamma    19a. 

2  Concerning  the  source  or  reason  of  a    law  : 
Taanith   2b;   Aboda  Zara  6a;    Gittin   45a. 

3  Concerning   cases  not  provided  for  in  the  Mishna  : 
Sabbath  3a  Pesachim  4b  Kiddushin   7b;     B.   Bathra  5b. 

Remark.  Where  the  propounded  problem  appears  to  be  merely 
theoretical,  the  practical  consequence  of  its  solution  is  investigated 
by  the  query :  nj'D  KpBJ  'NIO^  for  what  case  will  it  be  of 
consequence  ?    Examples  :    Pesachim  4a;    B.   Kamma  24a;  Gittin  36b. 

Solution  of    the  Problem. 
§    90 

The  solution  of  a  problem  (the  verb  is  Dtt'S)  is 
introduced  by  the  phrase  yctS^  wr  (abbr.  ^"D)  come  and 
hear.  When  rejected,  another  solution  introduced  by  the  same 
phrase  is  generally  attempted.  The  final  acceptance  of  a 
solution  is  indicated  by  the  closing  phrase  n''i''D  yoiy  hear 
it  therefrom,  i.  e.,  this  settles  the  question,  this  is  the 
correct    solution. 


Asking  and  Answering  Questions  245 

Where  no  solution  is  found,  it  is  indicated  by  the  term 
1pTl(  =  D1iTn)  it  stands,  i.  e.,  the  question  remains  unsolved. 

Where  the  questioner  himself  finds  a  solution,  the  phrase 
is  :  niatys  "lin  ^yai  nn2  after  having  propounded  this 
question,  he  again  solved  it.  Examples  :  Sabbath  4b;  Kid- 
dushin   9b;    Sanhedrin    10a. 

If  out  of  several  prol)lems  only  one  can  be  solved,  the 
solution  is  introduced  by  the  phrase  xin  KHD  taiB'S  you 
may  solve,  at  least,  one  of  them :  f.  ex.  B.  Metzia  25a; 
Gittift  44a. 

A  Series   of  Problems  Linked  together. 
§    9i 

Sometimes,  a  series  of  problems  concerning  imaginary 
cases  of  a  certain  law  are  set  forth  by  a  teacher,  and  so 
arranged  that  if  one  of  them  be  solved,  the  following  one 
would  still  remain  doubtful.  Each  problem,  except  the  first 
one,  is  then  generally  introduced  by  the  phrase... "\!D1^  X^Dfl  DS1 
and  if  you  should  be  able  to  say....  (to  solve  it  in  one  way) 
1  still  ask...  (the  following  case). 

Examples  :  Pesachim  10b;  Kiddushin  7b;  Kethuboth  2a; 
B.    Metzia  2 1  a;  24a. 

Remark.  Some  of  the  Babylonian  teachers,  especially  Raba,  R. 
Jirmiah,  Rab  Papa,  were  noted  for  having  indulged  in  propounding 
such  problems  concerning  imaginary  cases  in  order  to  display  their 
ingenuity.  R.  Jirmiah  was  at  a  certain  occasion  even  expelled  from  the 
academy  for  having  troubled  his  colleagues  by  his  imaginary  and  trif- 
ling problems  (B.  Bathra  23b).  Of  Raba  and  some  other  teachers  it  is 
expressly  stated  that  they  occasionally  propounded  such  problems, 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  ability  and  acuteness  of  their 
pupils;  Erubin  51a;  Menachoth  91b;  Chullin  133a. 

Questions  laid  before  higher  Authorities      r  Decision. 

§92. 
Ditferent  from  the  questions  of  problem  just  spoken  of  are 


246  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

those  questions  which  were  directed  to  a  higher  authority, 
either  to  a  celebrated  teacher  or  to  an  academy,  especially  of 
Palestine,  to  consider  and  decide  upon  a  difficulty  or  a  dis- 
pute. Such  questions  are  usually  introduced  by  the  phrase  : 
...."iJi"!  IjID^^  ^}^h2b  n'^b  in^tt'  they  sent   to  a  certain  teacher 

(asking,):  may   our  teacher  instruct  us  concerning The 

answer  is  then  introduced  by  :  ....in^  ub^  he  sent  to  them 
(the   answer).... 

Examples  :    Sanhedrin  8a;   B.  Kamma  27b;  Gittin  66b. 

Remark,  Also  the  phrase  DDD  iripK'  they  sent  from  there  (i.  e. 
from  Palestine  to  Babylon)  means,  they  sent  an  answer  to  a  question 
directed  to    them;  £.   ex.,   Betza  4b;  Gittin  20a;  Sanhedrin  17b. 


CHAPTER  X. 

E.     ARGUMENTATION. 

1.     Terms  and  Phrases  Introducing  an  Argument, 

§  93 

An  argument,  that  is.  the  reason  offered  to  prove  or  dis- 
prove any  matter  of  question,  is  termed  DJ?t3  (the  reason). 

In  the  Talraudic  discussion,  arguments  are  mostly  intro- 
duced by  one  of  the  following  phrases  : 

a.  SD  yta  ''WIO  what  is  the  reason?  Berachoth  3b,  a.  elsewhere. 

b.  yDtS'  Sn  come  and  hear,  i.  e.,  you  may  derive  it  from; 
the  following...;  Berachoth  2b,  a.  elsewhere. 

c  ym  you  may  know  (infer)  it  from  the  following.  Berachoth 
15a;  B.  Metzia   5b,   a.  elsewhere. 

d.  M^  WC8  K2D  whence  do  I  maintain  this  ?on  what  do  I 
base  my  opinion  ?  Berachoth  25a;   Sabbath  lib,  a.  elsewhere. 

e.  KIDTI  WD1  and  whence  may  you  say  (prove)  that....? 
Sabbath  23a;  B.   Metzia  11a. 

f.  ]iK  "'TnJ  let  us  see  (into  the  subject),  let  us  argue  on  the 
subject.  Berachoth  2Ta;  B.  Kamma51b;  B.  Metzia  8b. 

g.  S'lSnotS  it  is  reasonable,  it  is  in  accordance  with  com- 
mon sense.   Berachoth  2b;  Sabbath  25a;  Kiddushin  5a. 

h.  S*12nDD  "^01  "'Dn  so  it  is  also  reasonable;  this  may  be 
proved  by  the  following  reasoning.  Yoma  16a;  B.  Kamma  26a; 
B.  Metzia   10a. 

i.  ''Di  Sp^l  it  is  also  proved  by  a  conclusion.  Berachoth 
26a,   a.  elsewhere. 

The  last  mentioned  phrase  is  especially  used  where  the 
argument  is  based  on  a  conclusion  drawn  from  the  wording 
of  a  passage. 


248  Terminoi.ogy  and  Methodology. 

2.  Classification  of  Arguments. 
§  94 
Arguments  are  either  direct  or  indirect  In  the  first  case, 
the  grounds  or  reasons  are  laid  down,  and  the  correctness  of 
the  proposition  to  be  proved  is  inferred  from  them.  In  the 
second  case,  the  thesis  is  not  proved  immediately,  but  by 
showing  the  falsehood  of  its  contradictory. 

In  the  Talmud,  the  arguments  mostly  used  in  direct  as 
well  as  indirect  reasoning,  are  the  following : 

a.  The  argument  from  common  sense. 

b.  The  argument  from  authority. 

c.  The  argument  from  construction  and  implication. 

d.  The  argument  from   analogy. 

e.  The  argument  a  fortiori, 

a.     Argumet  from  Common  Sense. 
§     95 

A  common  sense  argument  is  termed  K13D,  so  in  the 
phrases:  SIH  X"l3D  it  is  a  common  sense  reasoning;  Pesachim 
21b;  Sanhedrin  15a,  B.  Metzia  2tb.  S"2S*1  KliD  «D''K  n'^'^2  ''K 
J<1p  if  you  wish,  I  refer  to  common  sense,  and  if  you  wish, 
I  refer  to  a  biblical  passage;  Berachoth  4b,  Yebamoth  39b, 
Kiddushin  85a. 

Common  sense  reasons  are  generally  introduced  by  the 
conjunctives:  ....Nm  for  behold...,  ....1  ^'•Kin  because,  |r3 
,...1  since,  ,..^^h  because,  ....i  Dltt'D  on  account  of,  •'JSD 
....ly  for...,  because.... 

b.     Argument  from  Authority. 

§  96. 
An  argument  from  authority,  termed  rT'S"!  the  proof, 
the  evidence,  is  that  which  appeals  to  the  autliority  ot  the 
Bible  (Knp  1DN1  tor  Scripture  says;  2T31  for  it  is  written; 
nOKitt'  for  it  is  said),  or  to  the  authority  of  the  Mishna  (jjm 
for  it  is  taught  in  the  Mishna),  or  to  that  of  the  Baraitha 
(K'^jm*  I'Tll),  or  to  the  accepted  teaching  of  an  Araora  (nD«l 


Argumentation.  249 

''Jl'?S),  or  to  an  accepted  tradition  (•'TDJ  we  have  learned  by 
tradition,  Berachoth  28a,  Siiccah  5b;  p'^tOpi  we  have  received 
it  by  tradition,  Erubin  5a,  Gittin  82b,  Maccoth  10b),  or  to 
a  settled  rule  and  established  principle  of  law  (j'?  XD'^^pl  for 
it  is  established  among  us,  it  is  a  generally  accepted  opinion 
or  maxim,  Yebamoth  6a,  Gittin  '28b;  jriDST  for  we  generally 
say,  hold  the  opinion,  Yebamoth  3b,   B.  Metzia  25b). 

The  Talmud  being  occupied  chiefly  with  questions  of  law, 
arguments  from  authority  are  there  of  supreme  importance. 

The  inference  from  the  cited  authority  is  generally  intro- 
duced by  XD^i<  hence,  consequently  (Pesachim  2a-3a),  or  by 
hh!2D  in  this  is  implied,  from  this  follows,  or  by  HTD  ]}DU 
hear  from   this,   i.  e.   you  may  infer  herefrom.,.. 

Remark  1.  The  phrase  riTD  yof  is  also  used  to  express  the  final  ap- 
proval of  the  preceding  argument,  and  is  then  to  be  translated  by:  It 
follows  therefrom  the  argument  is  accepted;  Pesachim  3a  a.  elsewhere. 
Remark  2.  Where  the  argument  from  authority  is  based  merely 
on  the  supposition  of  a  certain  interpretation  of  the  quoted  passage 
or  on  a  supposed  circumstance  to  which  it  refers,  that  supposition 
is  introduced  by  ...."IN^  'ND  is  it  not  (to  be  supposed)  that....? 
In  answering  such  an  argument,  the  opponent  generally  denies 
that  supposition  by  ...X?  it  is  not  so,  but...  ;  f.  ex.,  Pesachim  16b; 
Sanhedrin  24b;  B.  Kamma    15b. 

c.     Argument  from  a  Close  Construction  of  a  Passage. 

§    9^. 

This  is  an  argument  which  draws  conclusions  from  a 
careful  consideration  of  the  words  in  which  a  law  is  framed. 
Such  an  argument  is  termed  XpVl  (from  the  verb  pn  to 
examine  minutely,  to  consider  a  thing  carefully),  and  is  most- 
ly introduced  by  the  phrase:  ....""inpT  ""D:  Sp**!  it  is  also 
proved  by  a  conclusion  from  the  expression  used  in  this  Mishna 
or  Baraitha. 

Examples:  Succah  3a;  Kiddushin  3a;  Shebuoth  29b. 
Remark.     Hereto  belongs  also  that  argument  in  which  conclusions 


250  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

are  drawn  from  a  positive  statement  to  the  negative,  and  vice  versa, 
by  emphasizing  either  the  subject  or  the  predicate  or  the  modification 
in  the  clause  of  a  law  under  consideration.  The  phrase  used  in  such 
conclusions  is  either:  ....KH  ...-T  NDVtD  the  reason  (the  force,  stress) 
of  this  law  is  in  the  expressly  stated  case  of....  but....  (in  the  opposite 
case,  the  decision  of  the  law  is  the  reverse);  f.  ex.,  Kiddushin  5b; 
B.  Kamma  48b;  B.  Meztia  25a.  Sometimes  the  phrase  is:  73K,  pS-.. 
K7...  strictly  in  this  case  yes,  but. .. (otherwise)  not;  f.  ex.,  Yoma 
85b;  B.   Metzia  30a;    34a. 

Such  arguments  resting  merely  on  the  emphasis  of  an  expression 
are  often  very  arbitrary  and  fallacious,  and  are  in  this  case  prompt- 
ly refuted    in  the  Talmud. 

d.    Arguments  from   Analogy. 
§     98. 

An  argument  from  analogy,  termed  tt^pTl  or  S'^DH,  is  that 
which  infers  from  the  similarity  of  two  cases  that,  wliat  has 
been  decided  in  the  one,  applies  also  in  the  other. 

Such  arguments  are  introduced  by  one  of  the  fol- 
lowing phrases: 

a 1  H'^Dn  in  similarity  with  the   case  of...;  Kiddushin 

12a;  B.   Bathra    28b. 

b Kn^  «^K   «''DT  kS  Km    this  is  rather  like  that  other 

case  of...;  Sabbath  12a;   Kiddushin   7a;  B.  Metzia  30a. 

c.     ..^.''33  jriDtS'S'TD  as  we  find  concerning.,.;  Berachoth  20b. 

d K  mm  ''TD  something  which  is  found    concerning..., 

i.  c.,  just  as  in  the  case  of...;  Sabbath  (ia;  Kiddushin  4a; 
Gittin   8b. 

Also  the  phrase:  (S'^ifl)  ]3n  iib  ''D  are  we  not  taught  in  the 
Mishna  (or  Baraitha)  ?  inostly  introduces  an  argument  from 
analogy;  I'csacliim  7a,  9a;  Kiddushin  7a. 

The  application  of  the  analogous  case  to  the  case  under 
consideration  is  generally  introduced  by  iDJ  KDil  ...Dnn  ''SD 
as  there...  so  here,  too. 


Argumentation.  251 

e.      ArguMKNT  a  Fortiori, 
§  99. 

The  argument  a  fortiori^  termed  iDim  'rp,  is  a  kind  of 
argument  from  analogy,  and  consists  in  proving  that  a  thing 
being  true  in  one  case  is  more  evidently  so  in  another  in  which 
the  circumstances  are  more  favorable. 

In  regard  to  Biblical  interpretation,  this  argument  was 
treated  in  Part  II  of  this  book  as  the  first  rule  of  the  Tal- 
mudical  Hermeneutics. '  Its  application  in  the  discussions  of 
the  Gemara  is  less  artificial  than  there.  The  phraseology  used 
in  setting  forth  this  argument  is: 

a.  «'»j;2D  KDH  ....nnD«  ....Dnn  (noi)  S*nii'M  now,  (since) 
there...  (in  that  other  case  of...)  you  say....,  could  it  here  be 
questioned  ? 

Examples:  Gittin  15b;  B.  Bathra  4a;  Maccoth  6b. 

b.  pty  h'l  )^h  «3n  ....onn  hdt  sna^n  now,  if  there...., 

how  much  the  more  (or  the  less)  here. 

Examples:     Yoma  2b;  B.  Metzia  2b;  Yebamoth  32a. 
Remark.    In  the  Agadic  passages  of  the  Talmud,    the  final  con- 
clusion of  such  an  argument  is  generally  expjessed    by  noa  nriN  Sv 
nD31;  f-  ex.    Gittin    35a;  Nedarim  10b;    Maccoth    24a. 

3.     Indirect    Argumentation. 
§    100. 

The  mode  of  proceeding  in  indirect  argumentation  is  to 
assume  the  denial  of  the  point  in  question  or  a  hypothesis 
which  is  the  contradictory  of  the  proposition  to  be  proved,  and 
then  to  show  that  such  a  denial  or  hypothesis  involves  some 
false  principle,  or  leads  to  consequences  that  are  manifestly  ab- 
surd. The  assumed  contradictory  thus  shown  to  be  false,  the 
Original  proposition  must  consequently  be  true. 

This  method  is  very  frequently  applied  in  the  Talmudic 
discussion.  The  phrases  used  in  indirect  argumentation  are: 

a.  («''Cp)....''3n  «!D''n  )fh  '•SI  for  if  you  do  not  say  so  (1.  e. 
if  you  deny  my  proposition),  the  diflSculty  or  the  objection  is.... 


252  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

Examples;  Berachoth  26b;  Yoma  15a;  P.  Metzia  5b. 

b.  («"»typ). . . .  nnDH  "'KT  for  if  you  say. . .  (the  contrary),  then. . . 
(objection). 

Examples:  Berachoth  2b;  Yoma  24b;  Gittin  35b;  B. 
Metzia  28b. 

c.  (S^typ)...."!]!!;!  Kp^D  ^NT  tor  if  it  should  enter  your  mind, 
(i.  e.,  if  you  should  assume  the  contrary...),  then...  (it  will 
lead  to  the  following  objectionable  consequence). 

Examples:  Berachoth  13a;  Sanhedrin  6a;  B.  Metzia  5b. 

Indirect  arguments  are  often  introduced  by  the  phrase 
SnznDO  it  is  proved  by  the  following  reasoning...  or  •'c:  "'Dn 
«13riD0   it  may  thus  also  be  proved  by  reasoning 

The  conclusion  from  an  indirect  argument  is  generally  ex- 
pressed by  Mih  «^«  is  it  then  not...?  or  n^^Q  yDtr  Mih  «'?« 
is  it  then  not  to  be  concluded  herefrom...  (the  correctness  of 
the  proposition  which  was  to  be  proved)?  In  direct  arguments, 
the  phrase  is  simply:  n''3"'Q  ]}^U- 

Remark.  Arguments  introduced  by  NianDO  '03  '3n  or  by  Npn 
'03  are  generally  regarded  conclusive.  As  to  the  exceptions,  see  To- 
saphoth  Yoma  84a,  s.  v.  D"jn  and  Tosaphoth  Sebachim  13a  and 
Chullin67b,   s.  v.  ••DJ  spn. 

4.     Direct  and  Indirect  Arguments  Combined. 

§    101. 

To  support  a  proposition  against  the  contrary  view  of  an 
opi)onent,  the  Talmud  often  uses  a  combination  of  direct  and 
indirect  arguments,  by  referring  to  an  authority,  and  showing 
it  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  proposition  and  in  disharmony 
witb  the  contradictory.  The  phrases  used  in  such  argument- 
ations iire: 

a.    (TBtr)  ....«r2^ir;  mos  "'n    (=mc«  ^w  sd^i:*^) 
(K-'typ)    nnos  ^s'   s^K 

it  is  well,  if  you  sjiy...  (if  you  accept  my  {)roposition),  then  every 
thing  is  all  right;  but  if  you  say...  (the  contradictory),  then... 

(Vol!  meet  sonic   dilliciilly). 


Argumentation,  253 

Examples:     Berachoth  26b;  Sabbath   23a;  B.  Metzia   3a. 

b.  Or\"I    or)    TSty     n""-!^  «D^tt*2 

it  is  well   according  to   my  view...,;   but   according  to   your 
view...  (there  is  a  difficulty). 

Examples:  Yoma  4a;  Pesachim  46b;  Moed  Katon  2b. 

c.  (ir\n)  TSty    ....naKT  |Sd'?  «D^ty2 

x^typ       ....nasi  ]«D^  N^K 

it  is  well  according  to  him  who  holds....;  but  according  to  him 
who  holds.... (the  contrary   view). ...(there  is  the  diffiiculty). 
Examples:  Berachoth  41a;  Yoma  40a;  B.    Kamma  22a. 


CHAPTER  XL 

REFUTATION. 

Definition  and  Terms. 
§  102. 

A  refutation  consists  either  in  proving  that  a  given  pro- 
position is  false,  or  in  overthrowing  the  arguments  by  which 
it  has  been  supported.  In  the  first  case,  it  is  termed  :  t^n^TTl 
(the  Aramaic  word  for  the  Hebrew  ni'wTl  an  answer,  gainsay- 
ing, refutation),  and  in  the  second  case:  i<2"i''£  (from  the  verb 
n-iS  to  break  into  pieces,  to  crumble;  hence,  to  destroy,  to  in- 
validate), or:  riTn  (from  the  verb  ^m  to  push  aside,  to  over- 
throw to  supersede). 

A.     The  Refutation  of  a  Proposition. 
§  103. 

The  strongest  argument  against  a  proposition  advanciil 
by  an  Amora  is  to  show  that  it  conflicts  with  the  authoritative 
decision  laid  down  in  a  Mishna  or  a  Baraitha.  Such  a  refuta- 
tion is  generally  introduced  by:  n"'2ri"'H,  or  iji^s  iTlD,  or 
''2''il''I2;   see  above  §  86b. 

A  proposition  is  refuted  indii'cctly  by  showing  that,  assum- 
ing it  to  be  true,  a  certain  passage  of  a  Mishna  or  Baraitha 
bearing  on  that  subject  ought  to  have  been  expressed  differently 
or  could  not  well  be  explained.  The  phrases  mqstly  used  in 
such  negative  argumentation  aft(!r  ((noting  such  a  passage  are: 

a.  («^typ)  (n^^  "'j;2''D)  mas  "'Sl  now,  if  you  say.,  (main- 
tain your  proposition),  then...  (we  meet  with  a  ditficulty). 

Examples:  (iittin  53a;  Kiddusliin  32a;  I>.  Metzia  10a. 

b.  (S^typ)  ...inyT  «p^D  ^81  now,  if  you  assume...  (your 
proposition  to  be  true),  then... 

Examples:  Sabl)ath  71);  Hcitza  9b;  B.  Metzia  10b. 

c.  («^?yp)  ...Kn^S  DXl  'low,  if  it  were  so.,  (as  you  main- 
tain), then.... 

Examples:  R.  Hashana  3b;  Pesachim  25a,  Betza  18a. 


Reputation.  255 

Remark.  A  proposition  is  also  refuted  indirectly  by  proving  the 
truth  of  its  contradictory.  The  confirmation  of  one  of  two  antagonis- 
tic opinions  is  thus  the  virtual  refutation  of  the  other,  and  vice  versa. 
Hence  the  Talmudic  phrases  :  (3)  "•JlbsT  Kn2Vni  (X)  'Jl^sb  iT'b  y^DO 
this  Mishna  is  a  support  (confirmation)  of  the  opinion  of  A,  and  a 
refutation  of  the  (opposite)  opinion  of  B  ;  f.  ex,  Yebamoth  53a,  and: 
Q)  'JI^Q^  'yvob  (N)  'Jlba^  3'nO  he  refuted  A  in  support  of  B;  f. 
ex.,  Yoma  42b;  B.  Bathra  45b;  Chullin  10a;  Zebachim   10a. 

B.     Refutation  op  Arguments. 
§  104. 

Sucli  refutations  are  very  often  introduced  by  tlie  plirase: 
"•Jl^S  n^  CI'^pHD  a  certain  teacher  asked  a  strong  question 
against  this  (argument)....;  (f.  ex.,  Sabbath  4a;  R.  Hashana 
13a;  Sanhedrin  4a;  Maccoth  3a).  Occasionally,  it  is  introduced* 
by:  ...'S  1''"iS  a  certain  teacher  refuted  this  argument  (f.  ex. 
Kiddushin  13a;  Yebamoth  24a;  Shebuoth  41b),  or...'s  ,13  Cll^iQ 
a  certain  teacher  ridiculed  this  argument,  in  showing  its  ab- 
surdity (Sabbath  62b:  Kidd.  71b;  Sanhedrin  3b;  Aboda  Zara 
35a;  Zebachim  12a).' 


M  The  term  Cj^pno  (from  F|pn  to  overpower,  to  attack;  hetice, 
to  overthi-ow.  to  confute  an  argument,)  is  mostly  used  only  in  re- 
ference to  refuting  questions  asked  by  the  later  Amoraim  from  the 
time  of  Rabba  and  Rab  Josepli,  thougli  in  Temura  7a  it  is  exceptionally 
applied  to  a  question  raised  by  Resli  Lakish. 

"jlD  meaning,  literally,  to  break  into  pieces,  to  crumble;  hence, 
to  invalidate  an  argument,  to  refute,  is  by  the  earlier  Amoraim 
used  as  a  term  of  refuting  especially  a  Kal  vecliomer  or  a  Biayan  Ab 
(in  the  phrase  incob  XD'N,  and  as  a  noun  KDI'q).  As  a  term  of  refu- 
ting any  argument  it  is  mostly  used  by  Rab  Acha.  The  Talmud  com- 
mentators Rashi  and  Tosaphoth  often  use  the  verb  -|-iq  in  the  general 
sense,  to  ask  a  question. 

The  term  C)130  is  mostly  used  by  R.  Abuha,  and  only  once  by  R. 
Jirmija  and  once  by  R.  Chanina.— Tosaphoth  Yebamoth  2b,  s.  v.  tS'K'S 
calls  attention  to  the  circumstance  that  some  of  the  Amoraim  used 
their  own  peculiar  terms  in  setting  forth  a  question.  See  KohuVs 
Aruch  Comi)letum  s.  v.  Pjij. 


256  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

The  procedure  of  refuting  a  particular  argument  varies 
with  the  nature  of  the  latter,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  following 
paragraphs. 

§  105. 

1.  An  argument  from  common  sense  (see  above  §  95)  is 
overthrown  by  showing  that  good  common  sense  rather  sides 
with  the  opposite  view. 

The  ])hrase  used  in  such  counter-argument  is :  nzllS 
(also  spelled  S^llS)  on  the  contrary^  or  more  emphatically  : 
SIznOD  S3S^K  r;3"ni<  on  the  contrary,  the  reverse  is  more 
reasonable. 

Examples:  Sabbath  3b;  Pesachim  28a;  Gittin  23b. 
Remark  L  The  term  ^2^^K  or  KQilK  (a  contraction  of  the 
words  n3"l  n  bj?)  literally,  on  that  which  is  greater  or  stronger,  i.  e., 
on  the  contrary  side  is  a  stronger  argument)  must  not  be  confoun- 
ded with  the  words  n^lTK  and  N3"ns  meaning  against  the  view 
of  Rabba  or  of  Raba,  in  the  phrases  :  nanx  naiT  N^B'p  Gittin  27a, 
and   N3"nK  S3"n  N^B'p  B.  Bathra  30a. 

Remark  2.  A  similar  meaning  as  the  term  naiTX  on  the  contra- 
ry, is  expressed  by  the  phrase  n"b  'S?3.  literally:  where  does  this  turn? 
i.  e.,  on  the  contrary,  the  opposite  view  is  more  reasonable;  f.  ex.  Pe- 
sachim 5b;   B.  Metzia  58b. 

§  106. 

2.  An  argument  from  authority^  (see  above  §  96)  is  defeat- 
ed in  different  ways: 

a.  By  showing  that  the  whole  argument  is  based  on  a 
misapprehension  of  the  passage  referred  to.  In  demonstrating 
this,  either  of  the  following  phrases  is  used: 

K"13Dm  how  do  you  reason?  How  can  you  understand  that 
passage  in  this  way? 

Examples:  Pesachim  26a;  Yebamoth  15a,  B..  Kammal4a. 

i<'?...m2D  ''D  do  you  think..., do  you  understand  the  pas- 
sage in  this  way  ?  It  is  not  so,   but.... 

Examples:    Pesachim  29a;    Kiddushin  7a,    B.  Metzia  32b. 

b.  By  showing  that    the  authority    referred    to  does  not 


Refutation.  257 

necessarily  concern  the  case  under  consideration.  This  is 
phrased  either:  (^2"  or)  nnn  '•iHtt'  there  (or,  here)  tlie  case 
is  different,  for.... 

Examples:  Pesachim  5a;    Shebuoth  15a;  B.  Metzia  10a. 

Or:  ...jrpDj;  ■'^03  snn  here  we  treat  of  the  special  case 
of... 

Examples;   Gittin  12a;  B,  Kamma  8a;    B.  Metzia  10b. 

c.  By  showing  that  the  passage  referred  to  is  not  autho- 
ritative, as  it  only  expresses  the  individual  opinion  of  one 
Mishna  Teacher,  disputed  by  another  autlKjrit}'. 

Njn  ■'Nn  ''D  ^!2S"r  Xin  he  holds  it  with  that  other  teacher 
...;f.  ex.,  Maccoth  10b;   12a. 

Or:  i<"'n..."'Jl'?S  ''JD  Sn  whose  opinion  is  here  accepted  ? 
that  of....;  f  ex.,  Sabbath  lib;  Pesachim  32a;  B.  Kamma  10a. 

Or:     STI  ''i^^D  concerning  this  matter,  the  Tanaim  difler. 

Examples:   R.  Hashana  19b;  Betza  9a;  B,  Metzia  62a. 

§  107. 

3.  A?t  argument  from  a  close  construction  or  from  impli  ca- 
tion (see  above  §  97)  is  refuted  by  showing  it  to  be  too  arbitra- 
ry, as  the  same  construction,  if  applied  to  another  clause  of 
the  same  passage,  would  result  in  a  contradiction  of  the  con- 
clusions from  the  two  clauses. 

This  refutation  is  mostly  introduced  by:  (Sti'"'"i)  NS''D«D'»i< 
tell  me  the  other  clause...  (and  apply  to  it  the  same  construc- 
tion).... 

The  result  of  this  counter-argument  is  often  added  in  the 
phrase: 

7^1''^:^  yDt^D^  H3''^  SnD  «^«  hence  nothing  can  be  proved 
herefrom. 

Examples:    Kiddushin  5b;  Yebamoth  76b;   B.  Metzia  26b. 

§108. 

4.  An  argument  from  analogy  (see  above  §  98)  is  refuted 
by  impugning  the  premise,  in   showing  that   the  resemblance 


258  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

between  the  two  cases  is  merely  superficial,  or  that  points  of 
difference  have  been  overlooked  which  vitiate  the  analogy. 
The  phrases  used  in  such  refutations  are: 

a K3n....Drin*'01  ^D  are  the  two  cases  alike?  there.... 

here. ... 

Examples:    Sabbath  6a;    Kiddushin  7a;   Gittin  3a. 

b.  .•.X3n...Drin  Sntyn  ''Sn  now^  is  this  sot  i.  e.,  is  thisana- 
logy  correct?  There....;  but  here.... 

Examples:  Berachoth  21a;  R.  Hashana  28S,;  Kiddushin  7a. 

Remark.  The  phrase  "OT  'O  is  used  in  refuting  an  analogy  which 
was  intended  to  support  a  proposition,  while  that  of  NDtJTI  ^DH  in  re- 
futing the  analogy  on  which  an  objection  to  a  proposition  was  based. 
In  other  words,  the  former  phrase  is  mostly  applied  in  attacking  a  pro- 
position, and  the  latter  in  repelling  such  an  attack. 

c.  Wn^SlD  Kn  Nn^«lD  «n  «^n«  nVi  does    this  prove  any- 
thing"?  This  case  as  it  is^  and  the  other  case,  as  it  is  ;  i.  e.,   II  » 
cases  are  not  as   analogous  as  you  presume,  since  the  c. 
stances  are  quite  different. 

Examples:   Succah  43b;  Gittin  33a;  B.  Metzia  14b. 

Remark.  This  phrase  is  applied  especially  in  refuting  an  analogy 
based  on  the  parallelism  or  the  juxtaposition  of  two  cases  in  one  and 
the  same  Mishna  paragraph  (XQ^DI  NtJ'n). 

§  109. 

5.  An  indirect  argument  (see  above  §  100)  is  often  refut- 
ed by  a  counter-argument,  showing  that  a  similar  objection,  as 
had  been  raised  against  the  contradictory  proposition,  might 
also  be  raised  against  the  original  proposition.  To  remove  the 
latter  objection,  a  distinction  must  necessarily  be  made,  but  this 
distinction  at  the  same  time  removes  the  objection  against  the 
contradictory  proposition,  and  thus  destroys  the  whole  indirect 
argument. 

The  phrases  used  in  introducing  such  a  counter-argu- 
ment are: 


Refutation  259 

a.  (..."'tt:  ^*kJ^pn)    (?  Nm:  ""D)  ..."lOytD^I  but   according  to 
your  own   opinion...     (does   it     agree    with   the    passage    re 
ferred  to  ?)  (is  there   not    also  an   objection   to  be   raised?..) 

Examples:   Yoma   8b;   Posachim    19b;  Betza  8a. 

b.  («''typ  ^d:)  (?n-lDSp"t3)  ...''KO  K^KI  and  what  then?., 
(shall  it  be  so  as  you  say?  i.  e.  do  you  want  me  to  accept 
your  proposition?)   but  also   against  this  the   objection  is.... 

Examples:   Berachoth  27a;    Betza  13a;   B.  Metzia   3a. 

Remark.  The  words  'NO  iOH  introducing  such  a  counter- argu- 
ment must  not  be  confounded  with  the  same  words  in  a  different 
connection  in  which  they  are  to  be  translated  by:  what  then  is..,? 
what  then  means?  as:  miN  >nD  iOH  "but  what  means  the  expres 
sion  miN  "(Rosh  Hashana  22b),  or  in  the  frequent  phrase:  'NO  nSn 
"DO'Iob  "1^  n^N  "but  what  then  remains  for  you  to  say?  (Yoma  8b). 
In  Rosh  Hashana  13a,  we  find  on  the  same  page  the  words  'ND  N^N 
in  three  different    connections  and  meanings. 

§   HO. 

6.  A  mode  of  refutation  very  frequently  applied  in  the 
Talmudical  discussions,  consists  in  showing  that  the  advanced 
argument,  if  admitted  at  all,  would  prove  too  much,  that 
is,  it  proves,  besides  the  intended  conclusion,  another  which 
is  manifestly  inadmissible.  The  characteristic  phrases  used 
in  this  mode  of  invalidating  an  argument   are: 

a.  ''Di  ...'l^"'£fc<  ""Dn  ''S  t/  so,  even...  also,  i.  e.  if  that 
argument  (or  conclusion)  were  correct,  its  consequences 
ought  also  to  extend  .to  that  other  case  of...  to  which, 
however,    they  do  not   extend. 

Examples:  Berachoth    13a;   Pesachim  Yb;  Betza  8b. 

b.  id:  ..."iS''S«  ...^''TW  ""KD  "•an  ^«  if  so,  why  Just 
teaching...  (this  case)  ?  since  it  ought  to  apply  also  to  the 
case   of. . . 

Examples:    Berachoth    16b;  Betza   8a;    Gittin   10a. 

§111. 

7.  A  similar  but  more  effective  mode  of  overthrowing  an 
argument  is,   to  introduce  another  analogous  case  where  the 


260  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

application  of  that  argument   \70uld  lea<l  to  a  palpable  absur- 
dity. 

The  phraseology  of  this  kind  of  refutation  is: 
"•DJ  ^3n-..  nnya  «^S  but  now  (according  to  your  argument 
or  conclusion),  can  it  apply  also  to  that  other  case  of...? 
Examples:  Berachoth  13a;  Pesachim  5a;  Uittin  23a. 

§  112. 

8.  Propositions  as  well  as  arguments  are  often  refuted  by 
the  objection  that  the  advanced  opinion  is  without  parallel  and 
example,  and  against  common  sense,  or  against  the  establish- 
ed principles  in  law. 

....1  ''TD  HD''N  *•»  is  there  anything  like  this,  that...? 
Examples:   Yoma  2b;   Betza  13b;   Sanhedrin  55a. 

§  113. 

9.  A  mild  and  polite  mode  of  refuting  an  argument  is  that 
which, instead  of  a  decided  objection, merely  intimates  a  certain 
possibility  which  would  invalidate  the  argument  under  consider- 
ation.      Such  refutations  are  introduced  either  by t<D''t<T 

but  I  might  say...;   f.  ex.   Yoma  2b,  or,  by...  sc'?''!!  but  per- 
haps....; f.  ex.  Sabbath  5a;  B.  Metzia  8b. 

The  answer  to  such  a  mild  pbjection  or  refutation  is  often: 
"^nyi  Wp^D  i<b  this  cannot  enter  thy  mind,  i.  e.,  you  can  impos- 
sibly think  so,  since...;  f.  ex.,  R.  Hashana  13a. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   DEBATP]. 

1.    Definition  and  Terms. 
§  114. 

Besides  the  minor  discussions  to  be  found  almost  on 
every  page  of  the  Talmud,  and  consisting  either  of  a  query, 
an  answer,  and  a  rejoinder,  or  of  an  argument,  an  objection, 
and  a  defense,  ihe  Talmud  contains  also  numerous  more 
elaborate  discussions  or  debates  in  which  two  or  more 
teachers  holding  different  opinions  on  a  certain  question 
contend  with  each  other  in  mutual  argumentation.  Such  an 
interchange  of  arguments  between  opposing  parties  is 
termed  K^ltDI  S^pty  (literally,  taking  up  and  throwing  back^ 
namely,  arguments).  A  debate  displaying  great  dialectical 
acumen  is  termed  ^12^3.  These  debates  generally  concern 
either  the  interpretation  and  application  of  a  provision  of 
the  Mishna,  or  a  new  principle  of  law  advanced  by  an  Amora. 
2.  The  Principal  Debaters. 
§  115. 

The  debates  recorded  in  the  Talmud  are  generally  between 
the  associate  members  of  an  academy,  or  between  a  teacher 
and  his  prominent  disciples.  The  most  noted  among  them 
are  the  following: 

R.  Jochanan   with    Resh  Lakish. 

Rab  Huna  with  Rab  Nachman;  also  with  Rab  Shesheth 
and   Rab   Chisda. 

Rab  Nachman   with   Rab   Shesheth;  also  with  Raba. 

Rab  Chisda  with  Rab  Schesheth;  also  with  Rab  Nach- 
man b.  Isaac. 

Rabba  with  Rab  Joseph;  also  with  Raba  and  with  Abaye. 

Raba  with  Abaye,  and  both  of  them  also  with  Rab 
Papa   and  with   Rabina  I. 

Abaye  ^ith   Rftb   Dime. 


262  Terminology  and  Methodology. 

RabAshe  with  Amemar,  also  with  Rabina,  with  Mar  Zutra 
and  Rab  Acha. 

Of  most  of  the  other  numerous  Amoraim  only  opinions, 
remarks,  traditions  and  occasional  discussions,  but  no  formal 
debates  ^re  recorded  in  the  Talmud. 

Some  contemporary  authorities,  as  Rab  and  Mar  Samuel, 
though  widely  differing  from  each  other  in  many  legal  questions, 
are  rarely  (f.  i.,  B.  Kamma  75aj  Aboda  Zarah  36a)  mentioned 
as  having  been  personally  engaged  in  debates  with  each  other. 
But  their  differences  of  opinion  are  frequently  quoted,  and 
made  a  basis  of  academical  discussions  between  the  teachers 
of  later  generations. 

3.     Illustration  of  Debates. 
§  116. 

The  following  synopsis  of  a  debate  between  Rabba  and 
Rab  Joseph,  the  former  being  seconded  by  Abaye,  may  serve 
to  illustrate  the  usual  procedure  in  the  Talraudical  controver- 
sies. 

In  Baba  Kamma  56b  the  question  is  as  to  the  degree  of 
legal  responsibility  of  rn^3«  "iDliy,  that  is,  of  the  keeper  of  a 
lost  object  waiting  for  its  owner  to  claim  it, 

Rabba  maintains  that  the  responsibility  of  that  keeper  is 
only  that  of  a  gratuitous  depositary  (Qjrt  IDIiy)  who  is  not 
liable  for  the  loss  of  the  object  entrusted  to  his  care,  except  in 
the  case  of  gross  negligence. 

Rab  Joseph  holds  that  he  has  the  greater  responsibility  of 
Si, paid  depositary  (-i'»3B'  "iDltt')  wlio  is  liable  for  all  losses  ex- 
cept those  caascd  by  inevitable  accident. 

The  reasons  for  each  of  these  two  opinions  are  stated. 

Rab  Joseph  opens  the  debate  with  the  attempt  to  refute 
the  opinion  of  his  opponent  {r\2rh  C]DT»  31  n"'3n''i<)  by  showing 
it  to  be  in  conflict  with  a  j)assagc  in  the  Mishna. 

Rabba  parries  this  attack  by  construing  that  Mishna  pas- 
sage differently. 


The  Debate.  263 

R.  J.  objects  to  this  construction. 

Rabba  removes  the  objection. 

R.  J.  renews  his  attack  by  appealing  to  a  Baraitha  from 
which  he  infers  that  the  keeper  of  a  lost  object  has  the  greater 
responsibility  of  a  paid  depositary. 

Rabba  admits  the  correctness  of  this  inference  in  the  special 
case  mentioned  in  that  Baraitha,  but  denies  its  general  applica- 
tion to  the  question  at  issue. 

After  having  thus  far  been  successful  on  the  defensive, 
Rabba  assumes  the  offensive  (C]DT'  2'\b  1121  n''2n"'K),  by  calling 
attention  to  another  Baraitha  which  he  dialectically  interprets 
in  such  a  way  as  to  be  a  refutation  of  his  opponent's  opinion. 

R.  J.  overthrows  the  refutation  by  showing  that  there  was 
no  necessity  for  construing  this  Baraitha  just  in  the  way  as 
done  by  his  opponent. 

Now,  Abaye,  a  disciple  of  Rabba,  enters  the  arena  to  sec- 
ond the  opinion  of  his  master.  Addressing  himself  to  the  op- 
ponent of  the  latter,  he  quotes  a  reported  decision  of  the 
acknowledged  authority  of  one  of  the  former  Amoraim  in  Pales- 
tine (R.  Jochanan)  from  which  decision  he,  by  indirect  reasoning, 
draws  the  conclusion  that  the  keeper  of  a  lost  object  has  only 
the  responsibility  of  a  gratuitous  depositary. 

Rab  Joseph  rejects  this  conclusion  by  restricting  the  deci- 
sion of  the  quoted  authority  to  certain  circumstances  which 
alter  the  case. 

Abaye  denies  that  the  case  is  altered  even  under  the  sup- 
posed circumstances,  and  the  discussion  continues  without 
leading  to  a  definite  result.  But  later  authorities  decided  in 
favor  of  Rab  Joseph's  opinion  which  is  adopted  in  the  Rabbi- 
nical codes. 

Other  examples  of  such  debates  are  furnished :  Yoma 
6b — 1h  ;  Pesachira  46b — ^47a  ;  Moed  Katon  2b  ;  Kiddushin 
59a;  Gittin  32b— 33a;  Nedarim  25b — 27a;  B.  Kamma  61a— 
62a ;  B.  Metzia  43a;  B.  Bathra  45a— 46a. 

Remark.  Diflferent  from  these  debates  in  which  two  Amoraim 
holding  opposite  opinions  argue  personaii;^  against  each  other,  are  the 


264  Terminology  and  Methodology 

discussions  of  the  Gemara  on  a  reported  difference  between  authorities 
of  a  former  generation  (f.  ex.  Gittin  2asqq.)  in  which  discussions,  ar 
guments  for  and    against  eitlier  of  those    authorities  are  advanced, 
refuted  or  defended.   See  above   §§  74 — 80. 

4.   Anonymouus  Discussions  and  Debates. 

Dicussions  and  debates  are,  as  a  rule,  reported  very  care- 
fully with  the  names  of  those  engaged  therein.  But  in  nu- 
merous instances,  the  names  are  omitted,  so  that  either  a 
question  or  an  answer,  or  both  of  them  are  reported  anonymously. 
Sometimes,  a  lengthy  discussion  carried  on  anonymously  is  in- 
terrupted by  an  answer  made  Ijy  an  authority  mentioned  by 
name.  At  other  times  again,  a  debate  started  by  named 
authorities  is  continued  anonymously. 

The  omission  of  names  in  a  discussion  is  probably  indicative 
that  this  was  a  general  discussion  among  the  meml^crs  of  the 
academy,  while  only  the  questions  and  answers  of  the  i)rominent 
teachers  were  recorded  with  the  names  of  their  authors. 

In  consequence  of  the  succinct  and  ellii)tical  mode  ot 
expression,  so  prevalent  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  the  absence  ol 
all  punctuation  marks,  the  anonymous  discussions  especially, 
often  otfer  great  and  perplexing  difllculties  to  the  inexperienced 
student,  as  question  and  answer  are  there  sometimes  so  closely 
connected  that  it  requires  a  considerable  practice  in  Talmud 
reading  to  discern  where  the  one  ends  and  the  other  begins. 


PART     IV. 


OUTLINES     OF     TALMUDICAL     ETPIICS. 


OUTLINES    OF   TALMUDICAL    ETHICS. 

Ethics  is  the  flower  and  fruit  on  the  tree  of  religion. 
The  ultimate  aim  of  religion  is  to  ennoble  man's  inner 
and  outer  life,  so  that  he  may  love  and  do  that  only 
which  is  right  and  good.  This  is  a  biblical  teaching  which  is 
emphatically  repeated  in  almost  every  book  of  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures. Let  me  only  refer  to  the  sublime  word  of  the  pro- 
phet Micah:  "He  hath  showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good, 
and  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justice 
and  to  love  kindness  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God.'' 
(Micah  vi,    8). 

As  far  as  concerns  the  Bible,  its  ethical  teachings  are 
generally  known.  Translated  into  all  languages  of  the  world, 
that  holy  book  is  accessible  to  evei-y  one,  and  whoever 
reads  it  with  open  eyes  and  with  an  unbiased  mind  will 
admit  that  it  teaches  the  highest  principles  of  morality, 
principles  which  have  not  been  surpassed  and  superseded 
by   any   ethical  system  of  ancient   or   modern   philosophy. 

But  how  about  the  Talmud,  that  immense  literary  work 
whose  authority  was  long  esteemed  second  to  that  of  the 
Bible  ?  What  are   the   ethical   teachings  of  the  Talmud  ? 

Although  mainly  engaged  with  discussions  of  the  Law, 
as  developed  on  the  basis  of  the  Bible  during  Israel's  se- 
cond commonwealth  down  to  the  sixth  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  the  Talmud  devotes  also  much  attention  to 
ethical  subjects.  Not  only  are  one  treatise  of  the  Mishna 
{Pirke  Aboth)  and  some  Baraithoth  (as,  Aboth  d'R.  Nathan, 
and  Dcrcch  Eretz)  almost  exclusively  occupied  with  ethical 
teachings,  but  such  teachings  are  also  very  abundantly 
contained  in  the  Aggadic  (homiletical)  passages  which  are 
so  frequently  interspersed  in  the  legal  discussions  throughout 
all  parts  of  the   Talmud.' 

'  Also  the  Midrash,  a  post-Tahiiudic  collection  of  extracts' 
from  popular  lectures  of  the  ancient  teachers  on  Biblical  texts, 
contains  an  abundance  of  ethical  teachings  and  maxims  advanced 
by  the  sages  of  the  Talmud,  which  must  likewise  be  taken  into 
consideration,    when  speaking  of  Talmudical   Ethics. 


\i&S  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Talmudical  litera- 
ture embraces  a  period  of  about  eight  centuries,  and  that 
the  numerous  teachers  whose  ethical  views  and  utterances 
are  recorded  in  that  vast  literature,  rank  differently  in  re- 
gard to  mind  and  authority.  At  the  side  of  the  great  lumi- 
naries, we  find  also  lesser  ones.  At  the  side  of  utterances 
of  great,  clear-sighted  and  broad-minded  masters  with 
lofty  ideas,  we  meet  also  with  utterances  of  peculiar  views 
which  never  obtained  authority.  Not  every  ethical  remark 
or  opinion  quoted  in  that  literature  can,  therefoie,  be  re- 
garded as  an  index  of  the  standard  of  Talmudical  ethics, 
but  such  opinions  only  can  be  so  regarded  which  are 
expressed  with  authority  and  which  are  in  harmony  with 
the  general  spirit  that  pervades  the  Talmudic   literature. 

Another  point  to  be  observed  is  the  circumstance  that 
the  Talmud  does  not  treat  of  ethics  in  a  coherent,  philo- 
sophical system.  The  Talmtidic  sages  made  no  claim  of 
being  philosophers;  they  were  public  teachers,  expounders 
of  the  Law,  popular  lecturers.  As  such,  they  did  not  care 
for  a  methodically  arranged  system.  All  they  wanted  was  to 
spread  among  the  people  ethical  teachings  in  single,  concise, 
pithy,  pointed  sentences,  well  adapted  to  impress  the  minds 
and  hearts,  or  in  parables  or  legends  illustrating  certain  moral 
duties  and  virtues.  And  this,  their  method,  fully  answered 
its  purpose.  Their  ethical  teachings  did  actually  reach  the 
Jewish  masses,  and  influenced  their  conduct  of  life,  while 
among  the  Greeks,  the  ethical  theories  and  systems  re- 
mained a  matter  that  concerned  the  philosophers  only, 
without  exercising  any  educating  influence  upon  the  mas- 
ses at  large. 

Furthermore,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Talmu- 
dical ethics  is  largely  based  on  the  ethics  of  the  Bible. 
The  sacred  treasure  of  biblical  truth  and  wisdom  was  in 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  Rabbis.  This  treasury  they 
tried  to   enrich  by   their  own  wisdom  and  observation.    Ilcre 


Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics.  269 

they  develop  a  principle  contained  in  a  scriptural  passage, 
and  give  it  a  wider  scope  and  a  larger  application  to 
life's  various  conditions.  There  they  crystallize  great  moral 
ideas  into  a  pithy,  impressive  maxim  as  guide  for  human 
conduct.  Here  they  give  to  a  jewel  of  biblical  ethics  a 
new  lustre  by  setting  it  in  the  gold  of  their  own  wisdom. 
There  again  they  combine  single  pearls  of  biblical  wisdom 
to  a   graceful  ornament  for  human   life. 

Let  us  now  try  to  give  a  few  outlines  of  the  ethical 
teachings  of  the  Talmud.  In  the  first  place,  concerning 
Man  as  a  Moral  Being, 

In  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  the  rab- 
bis duly  emphasize  man's  dignity  as  a  being  created  in  the 
likeness  of  God.'  By  this  likeness  of  God  they  understand 
the  spiritual  being  within  us,  that  is  endowed  with  intel- 
lectual and  moral  capacities.  The  higher  desires  and  inspi- 
rations which  spring  from  this  spiritual  being  in  man,  are 
called  Yetzer  tob^  the  good  inclination;  but  the  lower  appe- 
tites and  desires  which  rise  from  our  physical  nature  and 
which  we  share  with  the  animal  creation,  are  termed  Yetzer 
ha-ra.  the  inclination  to  evil."  Not  that  these  sensuous  de- 
sires are  absolutely  evil;  for  they,  too,  have  been  implant- 
ed in  man  for  good  purposes.  Without  them  man  could 
not  exist,  he  would  not  cultivate  and  populate  this 
earth  =,  or,  as  a  Talmudical  legend  runs:  Once,  some 
overpious  people  wanted  to  pray  to  God  that  they 
might  be  able  to  destroy  the  Yetzer.  ha-ra,  but  a  war- 
ning voice  was  heard,  saying:  "Beware,  lest  you  destroy 
this  world  1"*       Evil    are   those   lower   desires  only    in    that 


1  Aboth  'I-i,  14:  R.  Akiba  used  to  say:  "How  distinguished 
is  man,  since  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  still  more  dis- 
tinguished by  the  consciousness  of  having  been  created  in  the 
image  of  God  1" 

"  Mishna  Berachoth   IX, 5:  y-|  IV'^I  2112  "lV^3    T"lV'  'JB^a 

=   Midrash  R.  Bereshitli  IX:  '131  in^V""  "'^1^''NB'  yn  "Ti^  HI  nXD  310  lUnV 

*   Yoma  69b:  .Nobv    K'^3  T\'h  Ifl-^tap  'KT  IIH 


210  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

they,  if  unrestrained,  easily  mislead  man  to  live  contrary 
to  the  demands  and  aspirations  of  his  divine  nature.  Hence 
the  constant  struggle  in  man  between  the  two  inclinations.  > 
He  who  submits  his  evil  inclination  to  the  control  of  his 
higher  aims  and  desires,  is  virtuous  and  righteous.  ''The 
righteous  are  governed  by  the  Yetzer  tob^  but  the  wicked 
by  the  Yetzer  ha-ra^  "The  righteous  have  their  desires  in 
their  power,  but  the  wicked  are  in  the  power  of  their 
desires.'" 

Free-will. 

Man's  free  will  is  emphasized  in  the  following  sentences: 
''EJverything  is  ordained  by  God's  providence,  but  freedom 
of  choice  is  given  to  man."*  ''Everything  is  foreordained 
by  heaven,  except  the  fear  of  heaven""  or,  as  another 
sage  puts  it:  Whether  man  be  strong  or  weak,  rich  or  poor, 
wise  or  foolish  depends  mostly  on  circumstances  that 
surround  him  from  the  time  of  his  birth,  but  whether  man 
be  good  or  bad,  righteous  or  wicked,  depends  upon  his  own 
free  will." 

God's  Will,  the  Ground  op  Man's  Duties. 

The  ground  of  our  duties,  as  presented  to  us  by  the 
Talmudical  as  well  as  the  biblical  teachings,  is  that  it  is 
the  will  of  God.  His  will  is  the  supreme  rule  of  our  being. 
"Do  His  will  as  thy  own  will,  submit  thy  will  to  His 
will".'  "Be  bold  as  a  leopard,  light  as  an  eagle,  swift 
as  a  roe,  and  strong  as  a  lion,  to  do  the  will  of  thy  Father, 
who    is  in  heaven"." 

Man   Accountable  to  God  for  his  Conduct. 

Of  man's   responsibility  for  the  conduct   of  his    life,    we 


'  Kiddushin  30b:  DV  ^33  vby  EHnnO  mN  \>^  T)VV  Berachoth  5b: 

•yin  -\T  by  aits  iv^  mK  m^  dSiv^ 

"   Berachoth    61b.    =  Midraah   Bereshith    XXXIII. 
♦   Aboth   III,  15.     *  Berachoth  33a.     '  Nidda  16b. 
'    Aboth   U,  4.     •  Ibid.  V,  20. 


Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics.  271 

are  forcibly  reminded  by  numerous  sentences,  as:  "Consider 
three  things,  and  thou  wilt  never  fall  into  sin;  remember 
that  there  is  above  thee  an  all-seeing  eye,  an  all  hearing 
ear,  and  a  record  of  all  thy  actions".'  And  again,  ''Con- 
sider three  things,  and  thou  wilt  never  sin;  remember  whence 
thou  comest,  whither  thou  goest,  and  before  whom  thou  wilt 
have   to   render  account  for  thy   doings.'" 

Higher  Motives  in   Performing  our  Duties. 

Although  happiness  here  and  herealter  is  promised  as 
reward  for  fulfillment,  and  punishment  threatened  for  neglect 
of  duty,  still  we  are  reminded  not  to  be  guided  by  the  con- 
sideration of  reward  and  punishment,  but  rather  by  love 
and  obedience  to  Grod,  and  by  love  to  that  which  is  good 
and  noble.  *'Be  not  like  servants,  who  serve  their  master 
for  the  sake  of  reward.'"  "Whatever  thou  doest,  let  it 
be  done  in  the  name  of  heaven"^  (that  is,  for  its  own 
sake). 

Duty  of  Self-Preservation  and   Self-Cultivation. 

As  a  leading  rule  of  the  duties  of  self-preservation  and 
self-cultivation^  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  a  warning  against 
selfishness,  we  have  Hillel's  sentence:  "If  I  do  not  care 
for  myself,  who  will  do  it  for  me  ?  and  if  I  care  only  for 
myself,  what  am  I  ?"* 

The  duty  of  acquiring  knowledge,  especially  knowledge  of 
the  divine  Law  (Thora)  which  gives  us  a  clearer  insight  in 
God's  will  to  man,  is  most  emphatically  enjoined  in  nume- 
rous sentences:  "Without  knowledge  there  is  no  true  moral- 
ity and  piety.""  "Be  eager  to  acquire  knowledge,  it  does 
not  come  to  thee  by  inheritance".'  "The  more  knowledge, 
the  more  spiritual  life.'"  "If  thou  hast  acquired  knowledge, 
what  doest  thou  lack  ?   but  if  thou  lackest  knowledge,   what 


'    Tbid.  II,  1.     "  Ibid.  Ill,  1. 

»   Aboth  I,  3.     *  Ibid.    II,  12.     "  Ibid.  I,  14. 

•  Ibid.   II,  5.    '  Ibid.  II,  12,      « Ibid.  II,  7. 


212  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics, 

hast  thou  acquired  ?'"  But  we  are  also  reminded  that  even 
the  highest  knowledge  is  of  no  value,  as  long  as  it  does 
not  influence  our  moral  life.  '*The  ultimate  end  of  all 
knowledge  and  wisdom  is  man's  inner  purification  and  the 
performance  of  good  and  noble  deeds.  "^  "He  Avhose  know- 
ledge is  great  without  influencing  his  moral  life,  is  compared 
to  a  tree  that  has  many  branches,  but  few  and  weak  roots; 
a  storm   cometh   and  ovcrturneth  it."^ 

L  A  B  o  K. 

Next  to  the  duty  of  acquiring  knowledge,  that  of  indust- 
rious labor  and  useful  activity  is  strongly  enjoined.  It  is 
well  known  that  among  the  ancient  nations  in  general; 
manual  labor  was  regarded  as  degrading  the  free  citizen. 
Even  the  greatest  philosophers  of  antiquity,  a  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  could  not  free  themselves  of  this  deprecating  view 
of  labor.*  How  diflerent  was  the  view  of  the  Talmudic  sages 
in  this  respect  !  They  say:  "Love  labor,  and  hate  to  be  a 
lord."^  "Great  is  the  dignity  of  labor;  it  honors  man."« 
"Beautiful  is  the  intellectual  occupation,  if  combined  with 
some  practical  work.'"  "He  who  does  not  teach  his  son  a 
handicraft  trade,  neglects  his  parental  duty.""  "He  who  lives 
on  the  toil  of  his  hands,  is  greater  than  he  who  indulges 
in   idle  piety."" 

In  accordance  with  tliese   teachings,    some    of   the   most 
prominent  sages  of  the  Talmud   are    known    to   have    made 
tlieir   living  by    various    kinds    of  handicraft  and  trade. 
Cardinal  Duties  in  Relation  to  Fellow-men. 

Regai'ding  man's  relation  to  fellow-men,  the  rabbis 
consider  justice^  truthjulncss,  peaceableness  and  charity  as 
cardinal  duties.  They  say,  "The  world  (liiiman  society) 
rests  on  three  things — on  justice,    on  truth   and  on  peace."'" 


•  Midrash    Levit.    I:  n^jp   no  fnon    7\T\    ,mDn   TVO  JT'Jp    HVl 
"  Berachoth  17a.      '  Aboth   III,    17. 

•  Arist.  Polit.  VIII,  3.     »  Aboth  I,  10.     •  Uittin  67a;  Nedarim  49a. 
'  Abotlj    11,  2.      »  Kiddushin   29a.     »  Berachoth  8a. 

'"   Aboth    I,  18. 


Outlines  of  Talmudtcal  Ethics.  273 

Justice. 

The  principle  of  justice  in  the  moral  sense  is  expressed 
in  the  following  rules:  "Thy  neighbor's  property  must  be 
as  sacred  to  thee,  as  thine  own."'  "Thy  neighbor's  honor 
must  be  as  dear  to  thee,  as  thine  own."^  Hereto  belongs 
also  the  golden  rule  of  Hillel:  "Whatever  would  be  hateful 
to  thee,   do  not  to  thy  neighbor."^ 

Truth  and  Truthfulness. 

The  sacreduess  of  truth  and  truthfulness  is  expressed  in 
the  sentence:  "Truth  i^  the  signet  of  God,  the  Most  Holy."* 
"Let  thy  yea  be  in  truth,  and  thy  nay  be  in  truth."* 
"Truth  lasts   forever,    but  falsehood   must   vanish."* 

Admonitions  concerning  faithfulness  and  fidelity  to  given 
promises  are:  "Promise  little  and  do  much.'"  "To  be  fixith- 
less  to  a  given  promise  is  as  sinful  as  idolatry.""  "To  break 
a  verbal  engagement,  though  legally  not  binding,  is  a  mor- 
al wrong.""  Of  the  numerous  warnings  against  any  kind 
of  deceit,  the  following  may  be  mentioned:  "It  is  sinful  to 
deceive  any  man,  be  he  even  a  heathen.'""  "Deception  in 
words  is  as  great  a  sin  as  deception  in  money  matters."" 
When,  says  the  Talmud,  the  immortal  soul  will  be  called  to 
account  before  the  divine  tribunal,  the  first  question  will 
be,  "hast  thou  been  honest  and  faithful  in  all  thy  dealings 
with  thy  fellow-men  ?"'^ 

Peacefulness. 

Peace  and  harmony  in  domestic  life  and  social  inter- 
course as  well  as  in  public  affairs  are  considered  by  the 
Talmudic  sages  as  the  first  condition  of  human  welfare  and 
liappiness,  or  as  they  express  it:  "Peace  is  the  vessel  in 
which  all    God's  blessings  are  presented  to  us  and  preserved 


1  Ibid.  II,  12.     "^  Ibid.    II,  10.     "  Sabbath  30a. 
*  Sabbath  45a.     "  B.  Metzia  45a..     «  Sabbath  104a.     '  Aboth  I,  15. 
"*   Sanhedrin  92a.    "  B.  Metzia  48a.  '"Chullin  94a.   "  B.  Metzia  58b. 
1'^  Sabbath  28b. 


274  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

1)3'  us.'"  "Bt  a  disciple  of  Aaron,  loving  peace,  and  pur- 
suing peace.""  To  make  peace  between  those  in  disharmony 
is  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  meritorious  works  that 
secure  happiness  and  bliss  here  and  hereafter.' 

As  virtues  leading  to  peace,  those  of  ffiihiness  and 
meekness,  of  gentleness  and  placidity  are  highly  praised 
and  recommended.  "Be  not  easily  moved  to  anger'"  "Be 
humble  to  thy  superior,  atfable  to  thy  inferior,  and  meet 
every  man  with  friendliness."-'  "He  who  is  slow  to  anger,  and 
easily  pacified,  is  truly  pious  and  virtuous.'"  "Man,  be  ever 
soft  and  pliant  like  a  reed,  and  not  hard  and  unbending  like 
the  cedar."'  "Those  who,  when  oflendcd,  do  not  give  offence, 
when  hearing  slighting  remarks,  do  not  retaliate — they  are 
the  friends  of  God,  they  shall  shine  forth  like  the  sun  in 
its   glory.  "* 

Charity. 

The  last  of  the  principal  duties  to  fellow-men  is  chanty^ 
which  begins  where  justice  leaves  off.  Prof.  Steinthal  in  his 
work  on  General  Ethics,  remarks,  that  among  the  cardinal  virt- 
ues of  the  ancient  philosophers,  we  look  in  vain  for  the  idea 
of  love  and  cAarity,  whereSLS  in  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  we 
generally  find  the  idea  of  love,  mci'cy  and  charity  closely  con- 
nected with  that  ofjustice."  And  we  may  add,  as  in  the  Bible 
so  also  in  the  Talmud,  where  charity  is  considered  as  the  highest 
degree  on  the  scale  of  duties  and  virtues.  It  is  one  of  the  main 
pillars  on  which  the  welfare  of  the  human  world  rests.'" 

The  duty  of  charity  (Gemilath  Chesed)  extends  farther 
\j\\^\i  %Q  \\\ii\-G,  almsgiving  (Tzedaka).  ''Almsgiving  is  practiced 
by  means  of  money,  but  charity  also  by  personal  services  and 
by  words  of  advice,  symphaty  and  encouragement.  Alms- 
giving is  a  duty   towards  the  poor  only,   but  charity  towards 


'  Mishna    Oketzin    III,  12.     ''  Abotli    I,  12. 

''  Mishna  Peah  I,  1.    '  Aboth  II,  10.    '  Ibid.  Ill,  12.      •  Ibid.  V,ll 

'   Taanith  20b.     "    Yoma  23;   Gittin  Mh. 

*  AUgemeine  Ethik.    p.  108.     '"Aboth  I,  2. 


Outlines  op  Talmudical  Ethics.  275 

the  rich  as  well  as  the  poor,  nay,  even  towards  the  dead 
(by  taking  care  of  their  decent  burial)'" 

By  works  of  charity  man  proves  to  be  a  true  image  of  God 
whose  atributes  are  love,  kindness  and  mercy.'  ''He  who 
turns  away  from  works  of  love  and  charity  turns  away  from 
God"/  ''The  works  of  charity  have  more  value  than  sacrifices; 
they  are  equal  to  the  performance  of  all  religious  duties."* 

Concerning  the  proper  way  of  practicing  this  virtue,  the 
Talmud  has  many  beautiful  sentences,  as:  "The  merit  of  cha- 
ritable works  is  in  proportion  to  the  love  with  which  they 
are  practiced."*  ''Blessed  is  he  who  gives  from  his  substance 
to  tlip  poor,  twice  blessed  he  who  accompanies  his  gift  with 
kind,  comforting  words"."  ''The  noblest  of  all  charities  is  en- 
abling the  poor  to  earn  a  livelihood".'  He  who  is  unable  to 
give  much,  shall  not  withhold  his  little  mite,  for  "as  a  garment 
is  made  up  of  single  threads,  so  every  single  gift  contributes 
to  accomplish  a  great  work  of  charity"." 

Duties  concerning  Special  Relations. 

Besides  these  principal  duties  in  relation  to  fellow- men  in 
general,  the  Talmud  treats  also  very  elaborately  of  duties  con- 
cerning the  various  relations  of  life.  Not  intending  to  enter 
here  into  all  details,  we  shall  restrict  ourselves  to  some  of  its 
ethical  teachings  in  reference  to  the  domestic  relations,  and 
regarding  the  relation  to  the  country  and  the  community. 

The  Conjugal  Relation. 

"First  build  a  house  and  plant  a  vineyard  (i.  e.,  provide 
for  the  means  of  the  household),  and  then  take  a  wife".*  "Let 
youth  and  old  age  not  be  joined  in  marriage,  lest  the  purity 
and  peace  of  domestic  life  be  disturbed"'"  "A  man's  home  means 


Succah  49b. 

Sotah   14a.     ^   Kethuboth  61a.     *  Succah  49a;  B.  Bathra  9a. 
Succah  49a.     «  B.  Bathra  9b.     '  Sabbath  63a.     *  B,  Bathra  10b. 
Sotah  44a.      '»  Sanhedrin  76a. 


2*76  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

his  wife."i  "Let  a  man  be  careful  to  honor  his  wife,  for  he 
owes  to  her  alone  all  the  blessings  of  his  house".'  "If  thy 
wife  is  small,  bend  down  to  her,  to  take  counsel  from  her".' 
"Who  is  rich  ?  He  who  has  a  noble  wife."*  "A  man  should  be 
careful  lest  he  atflict  his  wife,  for  God  counts  her  tears. "°  "If 
in  anger  the  one  hand  removed  thy  wife  or  thy  child,  let  the 
other  hand  again  bring  them  back  to  thy  heart,""  "He  who 
loves  his  wife  as  his  own  self,  and  honors  her  more  than 
himself,  and  he  who  educates  his  children  in  the  right  way, 
to  him  applies  the  divine  proniise  :  Thou  shalt  know  that 
there  is  peace  in  thy  tent."'  "Tears  are  shed  on  God's  altar 
for  the  one  who  forsakes  the  wife  of  his  youth."*  "He  who 
divorces  his  wife,  is  hated  before  God".' 

Parents  and  Childeen. 

"Parental  love  should  be  impartial,  one  child  must  not  be 
preferred  to  the  other".'"  ""It  is  a  fathers  duty  not  only  to 
provide  for  his  minor  children,  but  also  to  take  care  of  their 
instruction,  and  to  teach  his  son  a  trade  and  whatever  is  ne- 
cessary for  his  future  welfare"/'  "The  honor  and  reverence 
due  to  parents  are  equal  to  the  honor  and  reverence  due  to 
God".'*  "Where  children  honor  their  parents,  there  Goddwels, 
there  He  is  honored"". 

Country  and  Community. 

Regarding  duties  to  the  country  and  the  community,  the 
Rabbis  teach:  "The  law  of  the  country  is  as  sacred  and  bind- 
ing as  God's  law"."  "J'rayfor  the  welfare  of  the  government; 
without  respect  for  the  government,  men  would  swallow  each 
other"."  "Do  not  isolate  thyself  from  the  community  and 
its  iiilorests"."     "It  is  sinful  to  deceive  the  government  regard- 


'  Yoma  2a.     "  B.  Metzia  59a.     »  Ibid.     *  Sabbath   2r)b. 
'  B.  Metzia  ma.     •  Sota  47a.     '  Y('»)amoth  62b.     "  (}ittin  !»()b. 
»  Ibid.     '"  Sabbath  10b.     "  Kiddushin   29a.     '"  Ibid   29b. 
"  Ibid   30a.     '♦  Gittin    10b;    Nedarim   28a;    R.    Kaiiiiua    113a;   B. 
r,:.'ln:i  54b.     ">  Abotli    III    2.     "   Ibid    II,  4. 


Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics.  27 T 

ing  taxes  and  duties".'  "Do  not  aspire  for  public  offices"*; 
''but  where  there  are  no  men,  try  thou  to  be  the  man".* 
"Those  who  work  for  the  community  shall  do  it  without  self- 
ishness, but  with  the  pure  intention  to  promote  its  wel- 
fare"/ 

General  Characteristics. 

To  these  short  outlines  of  Talmudical  ethics  let  us  add 
only  a  few  general  remarks.  Being  essentially  a  development  of 
the  sublime  ethical  principles  and  teachings  of  the  Bible,  the 
Talmudical  ethics  retains  the  general  characteristics  of  that 
origin. 

It  teaches  nothing  that  is  against  human  nature,  nothing 
that  is  incompatible  with  the  existence  and  welfare  of  human 
society.  It  is  free  from  the  extreme  excess  and  austerity  to 
which  the  lofty  ideas  of  religion  and  morality  were  carried 
by  the  theories  and  practices  of  some  sects  inside  and  outside 
of  Judaism. 

Nay,  many  Talmudical  maxims  and  sayings  are  evidently 
directed  against  such  austerities  and  extravagances.  Thus 
they  warn  against  the  monastic  idea  of  obtaining  closer 
communion  with  God  by  fleeing  from  human  society  and 
by  seclusion  from  temporal  concerns  of  life  :  "Do  not  sepa- 
rate thyself  from  society."'  "Man's  thoughts  and  ways  shall 
always  be  in  contact  and  sympathy  with  fellow-men.""  "No 
one  shall  depart  from  the  general  customs  and  manners.'" 
•  "Better  is  he  who  lives  on  the  toil  of  his  hand,  than  he  who 
indulges  in  idle  piety.'" 

They  strongly  discountenance  the  idea  of  celibacy,  which 
the  Essenes,  and  later,  some  orders  of  the  Church  regarded 
as  a  superior  state  of  perfection.  The  rabbis  say:  "He  who 
lives  without  a  wife  is  no  perfect   man.'"     "To  be  unmarried 

>   Pesachim   112b:    D30n    p -|OVy  n'nan  ^Kl  also  B.  Kamraa  113a 

^  Aboth  I,  10.     '   Ibid.  II,  5.     ^  Ibid.  II,  2. 

•  Aboth  II,  4.     '  Kethuboth  11a.      '  B.  Metzia  86b. 

*  Berachot  8b.    '  Yebamoth  63a. 


278  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

is  to  live  without  joy,  without  blessing,  without  kindness, 
without  religion  and  without  peace.'"  ''As  soon  as  man  mar- 
ries, his  sins  decrease."* 

While,  on  the  one  hand,  they  warn  against  too  much 
indulgence  in  pleasures  and  in  the  gratification  of  bodily 
appetites  and  against  the  insatiable  })ursuit  of  earthly  goods 
and  riches,  as  well  as  against  the  inordinate  desire  of  honor 
and  power,  on  the  other  hand,  they  strongly  disapprove  the 
ascetic  mortification  of  the  body  and  abstinence  from  en- 
joyment, and  the  cynic  contempt  of  all  luxuries  that  beau- 
tify lite.  They  say  :  "God's  commandments  are  intended  to 
enhance  the  value  and  enjoyment  of  life,  but  not  to  mar  it 
and  make  it  gloomy.'"  "If  thou  hast  the  means,  enjoy  life's 
innocent  pleasures."*  "He  who  denies  himself  the  use  of  wine 
is  a  sinner.'"  "No  one  is  permitted  to  afflict  himself  by 
unnecessary  fasting.'"  "The  pious  fool,  the  hypocrite,  and 
the  Pharisaic  flagellant  are  destroyers  of  human  society.'" 
"That  which  beautifies  life  and  gives  it  vigor  and  strength, 
just  as  riches  and  honor,  is  suitable  to  the  pious,  and 
agreeable  to  the  world  at  large.'" 

Finally,  one  more  remark  :  The  Talmud  has  often  been 
accused  of  being  illiberal,  as  if  teaching  its  duties  only  for 
Jews  towards  fellow-believers,  but  not  also  towards  fellow- 
men  in  general.  This  charge  is  entirely  unfounded.  It  is 
true,  and  quite  natural,  that  in  regard  to  the  ritual  and  cc- 
remonial  law  and  practice,  a  distinction  between  Jew  and 
Gentile  was  made.  It  is  also  true,  that  we  occasionally 
meet  in  the  Talmud  with  an  uncharitable  utterance  against 
the  heathen  world,  liut  it  must  be  remembered  in  what 
state  of  moral  corruption  and  degradation  their  heathen 
surroundings   were,   at   that  time.     And  this,    too,   must    be 


•  Ibid.  62a.      '  Ibid.  63b. 
'  Yoma  85b:   Dn3  niD"'K'  nSi    Dn3  ^m.    *  Erubin  54a:  -^  ^^    Qx 
*1^  3l3''n.     '  Taanith  11a.     "  Ibid.  23b.     '  Mishna   Sota  III,  4. 

"  Baraitha,  Aboth  VI,  8:  D^pnv!?  HW  ...nuam  "inyni  nam  'un 


Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics.  279 

remembered,  that  such  utterances  are  only  made  by  individ- 
uals who  gave  vent  to  their  indignation  in  view  ol"  the 
cruel  persecutions  whose  victims  they  were.  As  regards 
moral  teachings,  the  Talmud  is  as  broad  as  humanity.  It  tea- 
ches duties  of  man  to  man  without  distinction  of  creed  and 
race.  In  most  of  the  ethical  maxims,  the  terms  Adam  and 
Beriyotj  "man,"  "fellow-men,"  are  emphatically  used;  as:  "Do 
not  despise  any  man.">  "Judge  every  man  from  his  favorable 
side.""  "Seek  peace,  and  love  fellow-men.'"  "He  who  is  pleas- 
ing to  fellow-men  is  also  pleasing  to  God."*  "The  right  way 
for  man  to  choose,  is  to  do  that  which  is  honorable  in  his 
own  eyes  (i.  e.,  approved  by  his  conscience)  and  at  the  same 
time,  honorable  in  the  eyes  of  his  fellow- men."'  In  some  in- 
stances, the  Talmud  expressly  reminds  that  the  duties  of 
justice,  veracity,  peacefulness  and  charity  are  to  be  fulfilled 
towards  the  heathen  as  well  as  to  the  Israelites;  as:  "It  is 
sinful  to  deceive  any  man,  be  he  even  a  heathen.""  It  is 
o'ur  duty  to  relieve  the  poor  and  needy,  to  visit  the  sick 
and  bury  the  dead   without   distinction  of  creed  and  race."' 

"Thou  Shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself"  (Lev.  XIX, 
18);  this  is,  said  R.  Akiba,  the  all  embracing  principle  of 
the  divine  law.     But  Azai  said,  there  is  another  passage 

in  Scriptures  still  more  embracing;  it  is  the  passage  (Gen., 
V,  2):  "This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of  man;  in  the 
day  that  God  created  man,  he  made  him  in  the  likeness  of 
God.'"  That  sage  meant  to  say, this  passage  is  more  embracing, 
since  it  clearly  tells  us  who  is  our  neighbor;  not,  as  it  might  be 
misunderstood,  our  friend  only,  not  our  fellow-citizen  only,  not 
our  co-religionist  only,  but  since  we  all  descend  from  a  com- 
liion  ancestor,  since  all  are  created  in  the  image  and  likeness 
of  God,  every  man,  every  human  being  is  our  brother,  our 
neighbor  whom  we  shall  love  as  ourselves. 


'  Aboth  IV,  3.    »  Ibid.  I,  6.     '  Ibid.  I,  12.     *  Ibid.  Ill,  10. 

»  Ibid.  II,  1.  •  Chullin  94a.    '  Gittin  61a.  "  Siplira  on  Lev.  XIX,  18. 


280  Outlines  of  Talmudical  Ethics. 

The  liberal  spirit  of  Talnmdic  ethics  is  mo'^t  strikingly 
evidenced  in  the  sentence:  ''The  pious  and  virtuous  of  all 
nations  participate  in  the  eternal  bliss,'"  which  teaches  that 
man's  salvation  depends  not  on  the  acceptance  of  certain 
articles  of  belief,  nor  on  certain  ceremonial  observances,  but 
on  that  which  is  the  ultimate  aim  of  religion,  namely,  Morality^ 
purity  of  heart  and  holiness   of  life. 


'  T(isei)hta  Sanhedrin    ch.    XIII;  Maimonides  Yad   Hachezaka, 
Teshuba  III,  5;  Melachim  VIII,  11. 


ALPHABETICAL  INDEX  OB^  THE  PRINCIPAL  TANAIM 
AND  AMORAIM. 


A, 

Page. 

Page. 

Chiya  bar  Abba  . 

45 

Abba(Areca  or  Aricha)  = 

D.— H. 

Rab.        ... 

39.43 

Abba  Saul    . 

35 

Dime     . 

53 

Abbahu 

45 

Dosa  b.  Harchinas 

26 

Abaye 

49 

Elazar  b.  Azariah 

27 

Acha 

39 

Elazar  b.  Jacob    . 

35 

Acha  of  Dif  te 

53 

Elazar  of  Modein 

30 

Achai  bar  Huna 

55 

Elazar  (b.  Sliamua)  T 

34 

Ada  (or  Ide)  bar  Abin 

I              53 

Elazar  (b.  Padath)  An 

I.            45 

Admon 

25 

Elazar  b.  Simon  . 

38 

Akabia  b.  Mahalalel 

34 

Elazar  b.  Zadok 

36 

Akiba 

39 

Eliezer  (b.  Hyrcanos) 

36 

Ame 

45 

Eliezer  b.  Jacob 

26 

Amemar 

53 

Gamaliel  (the  Elder) 

24 

Ashe 

51 

Gamaliel  II  of  Jamnia 

35 

Assi 

45 

Gamaliel  III. 

41. 

Gebiha 

53 

B. 

Hillel    . 

33 

Bar  Kappara 

37 

Hillel  II 

48 

Bar  Napacha 

Hoshaya  (or  Oshaya) 

39 

(Jochanan)     . 

43 

Huna 

46 

Ben  Azai     . 

31 

Ben  Bathyra 

37 

I.— J. 

Ben  Zoma    . 

30 

Ide  bar  Abin 

53 

Ben  Nanos  (Simon) 

30 

Ilai        .        .        .        . 

32 

Beth  Hillel 
Beth  Shamai 

24 

Ise  b.  Judali. 

39 

Ishmael  (b.  Elisha) 

28 

n 

Ishmael  bar  Jose 

39 

\J» 

Janai  (the  Elder) 

39 

Cahana 

53 

Jehuda,  see  Juda. 

Chanan 

35 

Jeremiah  (or  Jirmiah] 

48 

Chanina,  chief  of  the 

Jochanan  b.  Broka 

30 

Priests    . 

34 

Jochanan  (bar  Napach 

a).        43 

Chanina  (bar  Chama) 

41 

Jochanan  b.  Nuri 

39 

Chisda  (or  Chasda) 

46 

Jochanan,  theSandela 

r           34 

Chizkia 

43 

Jochanan  b.  Zaccai 

24 

Chiya,  the  great 

Jonah     . 

48 

(or  the  Elder) 

39 

Jonathan  (the  Elder) 

39 

282 


Index  of  Principal  Tanaim  and  Amoraim. 


Page. 

Jose  (bar  Chalafta),  a  Tana  33 
Jose  (bar  Zabda),    Pal. 

Amora    ...  48 

Jose,  a  Babyl.  Amora  .  55 

Jose,  the  Galilean        .  30 

Jose  b.  Juda          .        .  38 

Joseph  (bar  Chiya)      .  49 

Joshua  (b.  Chanania).  26 

Joshua  b.  Korcha         •  35 

Joshua  b.  Levi      .        .  43 

Juda  b.  Baba        .         .  30 

Ju.ia  b.  Bathyra  .        .  27 

Juda  Hanasi  (= Rabbi)  37 

Juda  II  (Nesiah)  .        .  41 

Juda(b.  Ilai)  Tana      .  33 
Juda  (b.  Jecheskel),  Babyl. 

Amora    . 


L.— M. 

Levi  (bar  Sissi)    . 
Mar  bar  Rab  Ashe 
Maremar  (=Mar  Jemar) 
Mathia  b.  Charash 
Meir       .... 
Nachman  (bar  Jacob) 
Nachman  b.  Isaac 
Nachum  the  Median  . 
Nanhimi  of  (Vwny.o 
Nathan  (the  Bahyloiiian) 
Necheniia 
Nechuniii  b.  Hakana    . 

O.— R. 

Oshaya  (or  Hoshaya) 

Papa 

Papi 

Plimo    . 

Rab  f =AV)ha  Aricha) 

Raba 


46 


43 
53 
53 
30 
31 
47 
50 
25 
37 
36 
35 
27 


3ft 
51 
51 
39 
43 
50 


Page. 
Rabba  bar  Hun  a  .         ,  49 

Rabba  (bar  Nachmani)  49 

Rabba  bar  bar   Ghana.  47 

Rabba  of  Tusfah  (or  Tospia)  54 


Rabbi  (=:Juda  Hanasi) 
Rabbina  I  and  II. 
Rafraui  bar  Papa 
Rafram  II. 

Resh  Lakish  (  =  R.  Simon  b. 
Lakish)    , 

S. 


Sama  bar  Rabba  . 
Samuel  (Mar) 
Samuel  bar  Abba  ha 
Saphra  . 
Shamai  . 
Shela     . 
Shesheth- 
Simai  bar  Ashe     . 
Simlai     . 

Simon  bar  Abba  . 
Simon  b.  Elazar  . 
Simon  b.  Gamaliel  I. 
Simon  b.  Gamaliel  II, 
Simon  (ben  Jochai) 
Simon  b.  Lakish  . 
Simon  ben  Nanos. 
Symmaclios  (or  Symr 


hos) 


T.— Z. 


Tarphon  (or,  Tryphon) 

Ukba(Mar)     . 

Ulla  (bar  Ishmael) 

Zadok  (Tzadok) 

Zebid 

Zera  (Zeira)  . 

Zutra  (Mar)  . 


53 

44 

55 

45 

23 

44 

46 

51 

43 

45 

38 

24  -^ 

35  - — ' 

33—- 

30  ^-* 

37 


28 
44 
47 
26 
52 
46 
62 


INDEX  OF  EXPLAINED  TECHNICAL  TERMS  AND 
PHRASES. 


Page. 

Page. 

217.233    . 

.    "ibn'Kip    'N?32 

.« 

210 

xmn^ja 

356 

.  na-nx 

157 

ax  pja 

204 

.     x"nx 

159 

::nin3  'Jtro  nx  r:2 

244 

xfD^n  IX 

244 

X'W 

253 

XD^K'a  mDX  "-X 

244 

n'j-'o  ^yn 

230 

-iDHx  -an  -lonx  "'x 

202 

.  xn^K^a 

244 

in^  x^yTx 

253 

-ijDxn  ixd!)  xob::o 

239 

.    XD^x  n^yTX 

V]  lb"'QX  'Dn  ^x 

210 

.   n^cnn 

359 

245 

noc'D  inn  ^yn  inn 

259 

{<;'  rx  'XO  "an  'X 

227 

n'^DI  Xp  X~l3iX  X13J 

243 

.      ...  "Xl  . .  "X 

223 

XDIJ 

217 

"in^rn  XD'X 

143 

.niEJ'  mrj 

339 

nOXT  XD'X 

249 

.     n'Dj 

3I0.201  34 

0          .             .    XO^^'X 

148 

....rDiDJ 

357 

XD'D    XO^X 

252 

n-.DX  ^xn 

337 

...xni  'rx 

251 

^DH  XD^n  xS  ••xn 

135 

pnn  p  r^'W  px 

252 

inyn  xp^D  ^xn 

218 

.      IID'X 

225 

.  in-'inn  noxn 

256 

.x-ianon  xdd^x 

250 

. .  .n  X'DH 

338 

n^a^n^x 

xSx 

xo^x  xSx 

.   J2"t>  'tvh  xSx 

:■ :  yob  .^o'b  xno  xSx 

174 

lyjyo  nnbn  -im 

240 

132 

ri  ,in 

209 

181 

xinx3  'pixi  njD  ;n 

252 

254 

n>m 

257 

134 

'1D1  inn  jD  aib  rn 

346 

.  xmiino  x^x 

249 

.     xpm 

360 

nnyD  xSx 

197 

.    nayn 

205 

.     XD^X 

247.852 

.voj  xpn 

313 

.      "XOX 

miD':^^"  x-ipi^b  DX 

388 

.  n^  nxp  'xc  ni?  nxpn 

185 

118 

trnT 

333 

ID  -lOX 

239 

xrjn  'Di  px  eix 

.n 

310 

inDVX 

148 

...D  x'nx 

213 

x'K'p  xaij  xn 

326 

n^y  -lonx  xn 

324.335 

.    -lonx 

329 

■"IDJ  iDnx 

238 

."•XD  ''xn 

358          i 

n'x-i3  xni  XTT-xna  xn 

■- -1 

203.357 

.  ""JD  xn 

. 

133 

pnn  ;d  xnn 

197 

.  layna 

257 

.  xjn  'xn  ^D  loxn  xin 

300.243    . 

.       jrpoy  'XD3 

284 


Index  of  Technical  Terms  and  Phrases. 


Page. 

Page. 

240 

ND'n  O"! 

242 

P^DtD1  3W»  Nin 

213 

Nin  N^S^i 

211 

NroN  mn 

259 

.  iDytD^i 

238 

-  ni  'in 

218 

..b  n>^  n^^i 

238 

.    nriin 

218 

.  xnn '»:  :'\bzh^ 

207.208     . 

.    i^M  ...ij"n 

225 

.  Dit^'C  nn  iDDi 

216 

.  NopNjnu^n 

227 

^Dn  noK  ^Di 

200.242     . 

'm  '3>n 

347 

N-ic^n  n:oi 

152.250     . 

li^p^n 

218 

'D  -I3D1 

200.241. 2J 

7       \ypDV  'xoa  N3n 

212 

.    'ansi 

207 

p"op  xnm  NDH 

215.223     . 

.  'nro-ii 

198 

1D13-in  NDH 

147 

.    '131  ]n2n  im 

258 

NHK'n  "an 

239 

ini 

247.252 

NianoD  'oj  'an 

213 

.   fK3'^)N^ini 

209 

-loxp  'Dn 

201 

.    NDHo  nS  'n"o  K:ni 

56 

.     n^Sn 

238.256 

N-i3Dni 

123 

'j'DD  nK'n^  naSn 

243 

iDNT  )XD^  Kn':n 

.'•— T 

160 

|n3K'  niK'n  nvn 

206 

mOIK  DNT 

212.251 

...Dnn  noi  Nn:^'n 

157 

3Nnj2  nr 

199 

noN  Dnn 

147 

nsn  IT  HTt^  S%T  IT 

258 

.  ...N3n  ...Dnn 

196 

IT  -\D)b  in^f  PN1  IT 

202 

"•Np  Dnn 

235 

noK  ini  "1DN  nn 

.1 

182 

pnn  iTn 

209.214 

.  NiDn''D  niDn 

233 

.  in'DytsbnTNi 

193.247    . 

Dyt2 

254 

•  •mON'KI 

206.250    . 

...T  NDyn 

254 

.  inyn  Np^o  'ni 

137 

pc:'  nov  - 

231 

1TN1 

192 

n^mi  n^m 

260 

.     NO'NI 

143 

.  BniDcn  p  Dino  Tob'' 

225 

.NO'n'NI 

246 

^:2•^  Mi^b' 

259 

'UK)  N^NI 

158 

...  N^f' 

213 

•     ,        •                  'NDX1 

,h-:^ 

254 

Nn'N  DN1 

225 

nb  noNi 

215 

1^31  ...  |ND 

240 

noxn  DX1 

250 

'njjnati'xna 

245 

IDlS  N^On  DN1 

232 

''r^2N*S--.K3'nS3 

205 

.   Npini 

163 

.         b^3 

260 

.  NO^'ll 

164 

t:-|Q1  bS3 

214 

.    NL^'n  moNni 

166 

.    ^SdI  t3-|Q"l  SSa 

205 

...{TKini 

167 

•  xpn  NDp  xSSi 

233 

..T  n'niiD  NnaSni 

256 

.T>b  ^2^3 

221 

.    N'jnni  ,pnni 

219 

.    "IDlbNXOriK'D 

lb2 

pnn  "iTni 

Index  of  Technical  Terms  and  Phrases. 


285 


Page. 

159 

irvo  no 

243 

"IJ^DJ  no 

218 

.  nD-'K'n  nsbniD 

151 

.    njQiD 

191.217     . 

.  npiSno 

260 

.      'TO  XD'N  ""D 

244 

jjnox  'D 

258 

xns  n"'0 

250 

mm  n^o 

258 

.  "'on  'o 

224 

.     NID'D 

259 

.  nw:  'D 

256 

.mno  '0 

206.249    . 

bbJD 

132 

noSo 

247 

.    n^  NrON  X3D 

200 

.       "h'TD  "'Jn  NJD 

24? 

K-io'n  NJD 

Zty^ 

.    n'o::'"i3T  ]D 

195 

'Diyo^  Nr"':o 

203 

^I'jno  ^jo 

200 

:|)JJD 

201.238     . 

:?jj:  ;!;:? 

255 

n'ijr^ec 

247.252     . 

N-ianoo 

198 

.    nt^'yo 

214 

.    mno^  nK'yo 

192 

Nny^^'D 

193 

;nrDi  nk'» 

222.241     . 

.    "Tn^D  ,n^no 

220 

.  in^jno  xn^jno 

255 

n^  pl'pno 

.V-.3 

132 

.      inj 

247 

.  PN  'THJ 

234 

\;jn3  NO": 

249 

.    jropj 

193.248    . 

.      N-I2D 

132 

.  pieilD 

243 

.  eilD  FlID 

283 

Nny^D  ,yvD 

192 

ND-'D 

Page. 

235 

'Nina 

224 

pDX  XT' 

160 

.  "131  nr  nn  isS 

226 

-lonx  c'n''D3  ix^ 

196 

IT  RX  IT  xS 

1!»6 

-IDXp   X"J?TO  xS 

260 

"inn  apbo  ab 

200.210.2- 

. '                xnnv  xS 

239 

N^E'p  ah 

224 

1Jt^'  x^ 

194 

"•NO  "inxS 

219 

liD'n  x!? 

233 

n^oyo^ 

203.217.2 

'3           .              .        XD^S 

234 

•"XjnD  nD'b 

234 

n^b  x^'yon  xo^S 

197 

nb^nnoS 

199 

xn^^n "xoS 

244 

nro  xps:  ^xo^ 

218 

xno-'oS 

195 

■•XD  ■'toiyoS 

200.243 

Dbiyb 

.2 

1^     • 

"•XO 

2^ 

"icnfj  X3'x  'xo 

232 

in"J'3  "XD 

101 

^5oyt3  "XD 

249 

1*6  'xa 

199 

•      x-io^^  ^i^ 

199 

yoctt  ■•xo 

199.228 

lOXP  "XO 

199.210 

•    l^yOEJ'Dp'^D 

142 

■I3DP  'XJ^ 

208 

.  x:)m  xjc^*  \s*o 

213.217 

.  xcj'n  xj:^' 'NO 

255 

na  ejijo 

122 

xn"-nxno 

123 

nno 

118 

HD^ni  mjx  t^'-iiD 

244 

ino 

210 

XD^m  mo 

157 

nnvn  ...no 

286 


Tndrx  of  Technical  Terms  and  Phrases. 


Page. 

Page. 

206.249    . 

n-'j'jo  yoty 

211 

n^b  X2nt3vx  xcd 

206 

n^yjD  nyoK' 

209.238     . 

"inyn  xp^D 

224         .        NnnvoB'  xnyoK' 

210 

xj'ox  tnyn  xpbo 

241 

.    K"'irK' 

177 

.     P310D 

241 

Np-'m  N""irB> 

191 

nno 

160        TnxD  D'xan  D"2in3  'i^ 

217 

.^r^Q  ab  1X3 IV 

175    T\sT  D^tr^nDnn  Drains  'JB* 

132 

xrm  n-\P'V 

252 

-I'DK' 

216 

n^b  losp  -i^SK' 

.n— .D 

193.261     . 

Nnm  N^pK' 

242 

.  iip'i'\'>z 

233 

yDK*  i<n 

136.251 

.     X3-i^D 

214 

.    N-i3n 

193 

247 

yin 

255 

ins 

132 

p  nS'nn 

242 

(p-iDD)  p-lD 

228.283.241.254  . 

NDnvn 

245 

.xnn  xno  oib'Q 

243 

.  .a  nrn 

117 

xipi  n'totrs  ,06^2 

245 

ip^n 

209 

.   xia'K'Q 

239 

210 

238 

207 

..3  D"Di  ..3  nna 

220.221     . 

Njn 

160 

.  ]r\2^  niK'n  ns 

220 

fpn)  N-13  XJD 

211 

.    X3nv 

202 

^NP  X3'n  wn 

212 

"•an^f 

195 

n^^K'i  Njn 

209 

"jm  p'DQ  xp 

191 

Nop  Kjn 

239 

.     xT'p  ,x^k;ip 
■iDim  ijp 

235.257     . 

x^n  'XJn 

130 

222 

}j2-i  "un 

124.183 

oiyni  ■'Ui 

221 

x^:n 

240 

.    n'on 

222.229    . 

.     '3n  •'03  N^jn 

207 

.  ux 

222.235    . 

n^niD  x-'jn 

192 

XB'n 

221 

xnn  "'jn 

258 

...XD'DI  •••XB'n 

220.228     . 

xrjn 

.n— .ts' 

222 

.  -)"m  nS  NJ^JD 

241.257 

(□nn)  X3n  'jxb' 

220 

(Dnnj  pn 

246 

n'b  inSK' 

236 

.  D^non 

246 

Dno  in^^cr 

V 


APPENDIX. 


KEY  TO  THE  ABBREVIATIONS  USED  IN  THE  TALMUD 
AND  ITS  COMMENTARIES. 


Dvy  nx 

.y"K 

3J  Sy  SIX 

.yyx 

■•E  by  fix 

."D^yx 

p  ^Q  by  ciN 

D"Dyx 

^DH  ib^QN 

.n"DX 

ib'QN 

"DX 

inv  i:^K 

.>i"X 

iciib  "inv  pK 

.b"vx 

Nip  -lax 

.p"X 

"m  IDS 

.-i"x 

Dn  irm  10X 

.n"nx 

(in  Tosaphoth) 

Tec  "nN  .bxiDj^  -iDX 

.^"a 

-loxn  Qx 

.n"x 

.IDlb  XVDD  DX 

.b"r\ii 

.3 

mx  'J3  ox  r:a 

.X"3 

nan  inixn 

.■|"X3 

bxntr'  px3 

.^"X3 

""••  nnx  11-13 

/' 

JT2  bya  -xina  xna 

.3"3 

abna  iK'a  -njn  na  in 

.n"33 

p-|  IT.3 

.T'3 

nniDX  Dnm  non 

.X""13 

K'npon  JT'a  -bbn  n'z 

.n"2 

xin  11-13  .Iran  byn 

'' 

nnoix  bbr^  nn 

.x"n3 

nibnj  ni3"7n3 

.:"n3 

(in  Tosaphoth) 

nD3an  nn 

o"n3 

pran  nana 

.rD"i-i3 

K'-incn  nn 

T'Dn3 

B'Tpan  TT'D  . 

p"tDi-|3 

mi  -ICQ 

.1"3 

D"n^by3-3inby3 

.n"3 

-jyiD  b^  ibin3 . 

o"jrn3 

Dipo  bsa 

.tD"33 

'rx  IX  .ir2x  Dn-i3X 

-iK'sx  'X  .max  ""X 

K^'x  riK'x 

xnbc'3  mcx  --x 

p  DX  xbx 

(n3)  13  px  .in"r3  XD^X 
XD'x  rT'y3  \y 

pn  n^  3x 

nnry  p  nrybx 

••-IDXn  N3'X 

jit^'xin  nnx 

n3nnx 

'3n  ib'Qx  ."'sn  "x 

nbiyn  niDix 

"•DJ  "'3n  px 

DX1  3X 

nnxi  nnx 
obiyn  ni»ix 

trSJ  b31X 

nrnx 

D^-'n  n-iix  .a^n  irx 

nrnnx 

13  nnx 

bxnt:'"'  px 


xn-ix  n"'y3  'x 


p  DX 

nbinjn  nDJ3  ••E^'JX 

1X3  3"'n3  px 

ai^bv  "'bi3x 

(inbj  n-'b  nox 

(mb)  ri^b  n-'x  .xr:''b  ""X 

nrD"'oS  X3''X 

"sn  xD^n  xb  'X 

nonDX 

"•nn  p  n3X 

D^iyn  ibo  irnSx 

'DJ  'X 


X'X 


.3"XX 

o'xx 

.3"X 
.X"3X 

.n"3x 

.y"3X 

.n"x 

.nn^nx 

.'nnx 

.n"x 

.y'nx 

•xV'x 

•xvx 

.y"mx 

.J"1X 

.r"x 

.n"x 

.T"nx 

.3"nx 

•  X"3'X 

x"y3''x 

.3"X 

.y'n3X 

.3"3X 

.y"3x 
.b^a 


.n"nbx 

.D"X 

.n"ox 

.n^'DK 

o"x 


/ 


288 


Key  to  Abbreviations  in  the  Talmud. 


NroN  mm 

.s"m 

"Dn  1S^2   . 

T'sb 

]nr{  xim 

.n"m 

Sy"VO  SD3 

.D"a 

n"^  mm 
lO'D^  n^b  mm 

.S"bm 

u-'^o  non 
nuira  ^m  s-in 

.0"03 

'VD  mm 

.o"m 

pn  in"J3 

•T'ja 

-lO'D^  "VD  mm 

.S"om 

S"Dk^•^  sny'DD 

•T'DD 

"irDxp  "Dm 

.p"m 

n"3n  Syn 

.n"y2 

xdSu  "i!?"iDn 

.y'DT 

(in  Tosaph.)  D:rn  mtya 

.n"y3 

mjiroo  "jn 

.o'-n 

nrn  D^^iyn 

.T"ny2 

-iDsn  jsm 

•  T'm 

imD  '^ya 

o"y3 

xoyo  "xnoi 

D"non 

nc^ya 

.Q"y3 

mpn  ^Dan 

.o*Dn 

nms  na  smn 

.S"DD 

nvj'SJ  ":n 

.y'n 

Dnn:  ''jsdi  dhdj  "jqd  .y'sai  y'an 

n^ro  span 

.o"jn 

sop  S33 

•P"3 

DnoiD  nm 

.D"l 

"SOL"  n"3 

.tr"3 

-|n-i3  Syn 

o"yn 

D"-|01S  "SOK'  n"D 

.S"K'3 

D":d  b  ^yn 

.D"Dy-r 

.'-1  DC'D 

•T'CTD 

iS  XO"pi 

.y^pn 

J 

"inyi  xp^D  xpn 
mm  pn  ,m'in  im 

.T'Dpn 
.n"n 

(in  Rnshi)  srinS  SD-|"J 

.S"J 

.pn-i  "um 

.-i"m 

.3"nj 

•  n 

nrDJ 

.T"3 

s]"DX  mn 

m"3y2  snn 

.s"n 

.yD"Dn 

niK'nTTJ 

(ill  Marginal    U^  ni  DJ 
Notes) 

D"nDn  mb"OJ 

nD-|"3  ,SD-I"j 
p  DJ 

D"B'J  "DJ 

m"iy  "iSj  .py  p 
□"oys  'J 

niK'  m"TJ 

sin  inn  mipn 

P"pDy"S03  SDH 

KJiu  "sn 

(in  Rashi)  p'OIJ  "DH 

ni^nj  ninSn 

sin  nn  .pn  sin 
THDi  sin  snn 

.n"3n 
.y"nn 

II 
II 

.T'n 

.n"n 

.T'nn 

.a"in 

.T"n 

•'": 

.'OJ 

-      ""^^onin 
nrnn 

.K^'-j 

noij  inrn 

.ytn 

.1 

■  soytD  "sn 

.n"n 

■ins  -im 

.s"n 

n^^  mn 

nnbn 

-in"'Db  n"S  mn 

.S"n 

.6n 

•V'Sn 

■itj'DS"ST   .s"sn 

p  sS  nsn  o'6sn 

'3n  so"n  sS"sn.n"n!isn 

"roo  nt^•o^  nD^n 
■"vn  mn  .''b"'D''3n 

.o"bn 
.o"n 

-iDib  svon  Dsn  .^'hst 
"Dn  is^DT  .n"Kb-r 

•v:?s  nsn  nn  i"n 

•s'non 

b"nnDn  mm 

.n"i 

^D-D^  "vo  mn 

.V'on 

(in  Marginal  NoteB) 

Key  to  Ahiuuovjations  in  the  Talmud. 


289 


'\j2)b  c'"'  Tiyi  .b^'^yi 

ppb  i"yi  .^^yb  i"yi  " 

Tiy  r"!'!  -y'yi 

(in  Tosaphoth)  r]^p  myi  .p"yi 

(in  Tosaphoth)  |Vy  "in^'1  .y"X1 

J^  N*D"p1  .S'"pl 

pan^  ^pi  .^"pi 

Cin  Marginal  pDJ  Dt^'l  -^'E^l 
Notes) 


.T 


noiwS  nr  -irx  nr 

■a"] 

HTDNnT  .nr-ins  nr 

.r"xr 

nrn  n: 

.t"2r 

nn  nr 

.r"ir 

Dni3  nn  ni 

o"rir 

n2-)n^(Djn3i)ijn3T 

•bn 

'\:^^'b  nr 
VJS3  N^cr  nii6  r3T 

nonj  inr 

.ny'rsr 

TIT  ny  nr  -nr  by  nr 

•r"yr 

ain^n  -icNcj'  nr 

.n"&j'r 

-i»N*  nn 

.N"n 

nyiDn  bin 
Dib^'i  on 

.on"n 
.V'n 

psb  nvin 

.b"in 

.D"mn 

nD-inb  d:ti3T  irrsan 

.b"rn 

nrnS  bn 
pxb  V"in 

.N"3n 

.b"n 
// 

••jnp  '3m  snono  nion 

p"n"iDn 

PTJ  "in 

.y'n 

.nyio  Sty  ibin 

.p'"ic'n 

.ts 

• 

(3S3  nytj'n)  3N3  't3 

.3"t2 

vby  iTnno  s'vion 

.n"yDn 

n'xnn 

'OJ  '3n 

.yn 

'DJ  X3n 

b'yb  anjjn 

nbyob  icNjn 

.b"jn 

'b'o  'jn 

.o"jn 

NianorD  'dj  'an 

// 

N3n  nbiyn  -j 
nrn  nbiyn 

.3n"yn 
•an'Myn 
•r^niyn 

ins  '3n  .•i::'n"'Q  on 

.D"n 

Dmj  msn 

.y'sn 

■|it3pn  .nt^'pn 

.'pn 

-iCiSp  '3n 

.p"n 

Nin  inn  K'npn 

.n"3pn 

mun-ia  3-in 

.2"nn 

miJtann  nnniy  mn 

.3"y-in 

•inan'  DK^n 

y^n 

m»N  'NT 

.N"N1 

xo\s  n'y3  'XI 

.X"3N1 

-lOSn  DK1 

.T'XI 

-IDUI 

.'«1 

nnon  nb'oji 

.n"y\ 

Sp  NVDni  p"Ti 

.p"ni 

(in  Commentaries) 

pnn  Kini 

.n"ni 

'oj  pnn  Nini 

.y'nni 

'b'n  'Jni 

.»"jm 

Q'-|D1i<  D'lDDni 

.s"m 

-loib  K"i 

•b"'"! 

D'tj'nao  K^'i 

.rD"'i 

ibi3i 

.'131 

Noby  ibabi 

.n"3i 
.y"3bi 

-lDN*n  |XD1 

.T'01 

"•an  DiB'cn 

.n"oi 

-13D  IDI 

.D"D1 

3nDK'  noi 

.c^"rDi 

rv^ 

.'yi 

290 


Key  to  Abbreviations  in  the  Talmud. 


JD  103  ."|D  tia 

DID  -sbD 

3n3  13 

DlpO  ^3 

'riNVD  13  .yoK'o  p 
»j  n:cDsiD3 

-lOKT  l«tD3 
(-IQX:^')  3"in3tr  103 

NoSy  ^^3 

Dxya  nD3  .-ybs  "3 
nvnb  i'"iv  p 

NIHK'  ^3  .ptr  b 
T'  3n3 

ND^y  ^bi3^ 
pc  ^3  xS 

K-'ya'o  N^J 

N3n  D^iyb 
nr  ny  ]'\^b 

snS  n^nyb 
^nyn  nvjy  ^eS  |. 

(in  Couimentaries)    j 

"'T'D  N-tJ'P  nS 
(IJtr)  KJ5J'  wb 

y">n  iiK'^ 
•ntryn  n^ 


.'"3 

.3"V3 

.3"3 


.0"3 


.n"03 

.{^"03 
.b"33 

.y"3 
.D"py3 

.D'P 
.b'^'3 
.::'"3 
•••"713 

.ypS 

.3"ny^ 

•fy"? 

"y^ 

.S"y^ 

.T'ya^ 

.T'jys:' 

.'Pb 


liny  in^iK'i  iid 

(in  Marg.  Notes) 

'xo  xoyo 
.1Q1D  myo 

DnDIK  {^' 

(.-13)  13  B'' 

PDTIJ  V' 

iniin  n' 


DniQ3n  DV 

7JDbo;iv-i  -n' 
in3in  n" 

31D  DV  I 

D^'ti'lSK)  li"' 
DnOD  tJ'"' 

DK'  piy 

y-in  -i:»' 

3in  -1^' 

Dn^'D  nx'':*"' 

pi  n^nn  13  K'np  |" 

IDB'  -|-I3n' 

inx  b  .DX  ^3 

nnxi  nnx  ^3 

^•nj  in3 

irD-13 13 

xjiij  •xn3 

S"iJn  |n3 

nbrnn  nDj3 

pTb-nT^3 
n^y-iT  "xb 


•  CO 
.D"t3 


.3"n^ 
•3"nv 

.n'"- 

.13"^ 

.t3"V 

.3"" 

.t3"^ 

.:^•"y' 

.:"n3p' 
.r3"T 


.X"3 

.X"1X3 

.3"3 
// 

.3"n3 


.'13 

•r"3 


>J  Name  of  Joseph  Kuro's  Commentary  on  the  code  of  Maimonides. 


Key  to  Abbreviations  in  the  Talmud. 


291 


Dyt3  jni3 

.t3"3 

.n 

on'  nb'D3 

.'"J 

njK^» 

.'D 

')  flDV  'piD'J 

" 

pnox  "o 

.X"D 

b'ybariDJ.nbyobnrDSj 

.b"j 

•MD'^h  XD'X  'XD 

.^"XD 

'h  nxij 

'/ 

Dv  niyan 

.'"yao 

m'O  NP3J 

.o"j 

3'n3T  ^XD  .no XT  IXD 

•T'O 

D^C'  pTJ 

•K'": 

D'-isiD  nmo 

.D"no 

n3B'  NCJ'i:  •naK'  ^J 

<i 

"^n  DiK'o  .D^nnrno 

.n"o 

.D 

pn  m'o 

.■i"no 

■Nrnnx  N^JiD 

.X"D 

^^"0  'Jn  xjro 

.o"no 

nnnx  nnco 

inyn  xpbo 

Njvjx  -;nyn  xpbo 

/' 

.D"no 

.T'D 
.X"1D 

minn  p 

-ID1D 

.n"no 
.'oio 

.n"nD 

■iDCOi  npo 

.o"io 

mini-niD 

.D"1D 

;nDi  xc'o 

/I 

p^D 

•V'D 

(in  Marginal  nj  pnO 

.T"0 

(in  ^nj  nWD  IDD 

notes) 

.:"OD 

pxb  nvino 

XDytS  ^XD 

.b"no 

Marginal  Notes)  '■') 

.t3"D 

niK'DJ  PDD 

.y'D 

-I3D  to 

.D"0 

^pQD  pDD  .S11DC11D 

.D"D 

ncry  ni^*D 

.y"D 

pi^yo 

''yo 

nyb  nyo 

•V'yo 

pnD  tjiD 

.S"D 

jDp  nyio 

.p"o 

xnn3  p-i2  fiiD 

.3"2D 

D'om  mD 

.n"o 

XDp  piD  5^10 

.p"5:D 

nin-i  c'lnn 

// 

ninio  p^'sn  onsc 

.n"D 

Dik*'n  vby  im  nc'^D 

.n"yn» 

.D"nD 

an^c'  no  .xjt^'  'xo 

."^"D 

•V 

nnt^'  'xifiD  ."'JK'  iK'yo 

14 

nioy  .j"y 

.'y 

"Dn  DISJ'D 

.n"::'0 

D^^^Sx  mny 

.x"y 

mK'D 

'i:j'd 

'X  nioy 

// 

(niDDinn)  n^n^t^  niD 

.n"^t;'» 

noDi  ni:D  nnx  Sy 

•V'Dxy 

min  ino 

.n"D 

.'n  Tiny 

.n"y 

in'jno 

.'^jno 

3J  Sy 

.:"y 

.: 

l^n  by 
DibB'n  vbv  -pxn  oy 

•T'y 

xrinx  xnDi3 

.X"3 

.,-!"y 

11^^*2  3n3J 

.3"j 

S3n  D^iy  ■ 

.3"ny 
.3"my 

n3i:n  nj 

.n"j 

1)  Name  of  annotations  to  Alfasi's  Talmudical  compendium  by 
R.  Joseph  b.  Chabiba,  often  referred  to  in  Tosaphoth  Yomtov  ( Heller). 

")  Name  of  the  rabbinical  code  by  R.  Moses  of  Coucy.  It  is  di- 
vided into  pB>y  commendatory,  and  piixb  prohibitory  laws. 


292  Key  to  Abbreviations  in  the  Talmud. 


D-^n  bv2  -lyv 

nrnb  ■In^;  .-idiS  l^v 
.;vy  "in^- 

•P 
minn  nxnp 

nDim  bp  -J 

P  i?CL"0  i<p 

inyn  Npbo  e<p 
p^y  inv  nvp 

n-'KHp  ''::'~tp 

(inTosaph.)  nci'p  nvp 

.yot^'  nsnp 
.1 


.n"3V 

.::'"nv 

.y"i* 


.n"np 

•V'P 

.n"ip 

.y'^p 
.y'Dp 

•T'Dp 

.y"vp 
■'^."'^ 

•t^'^p 


nrn  nb^v 

.T"ny 

n-iT  mizy  .nr  t^y 

.T"y 

nnvn  'any 

.n"y 

n'^y 

.'"y 

('  apy^  rv 

" 

niD  Dv  3-iy 

.D"vy 

nci!?  -J"  TW 

.b"'y 

^3  by  ,IN3  ny 

.a"y 

in-)D  by 

J/ 

"jyj^  nay 

•/ 

v-ian  p?3  ny 

•T'ay 

n'lSroi  D'aaa  -uiy 

.D"iay 

)2r^'b  l^a  ly 

.b"ay 

D^J2  b  bv 

.D"ay 

b'vb  ]y 

.b"y 

run  by 

.D"y 

my  j"y  .nay  lay 

■y"y 

D'b'bN  muy  naiy 

.ii"VV 

D'HDQ  'any  ,'d  by 

.D"y 

n:L"n  l-ni  any 

.n"-iy 

C'lin  K'X-i  any 

.n'ny 

Dcj'  i"y  ,naL*'  aiy 

.L*'"y 

l"'Dinn  'any 

.n"y 

.S3 

ntr">D  -pna 

.'D 

.  'N  p-13  .nnx  nys 

.X"E3 

.'ap-iQ  .Nina  pi2 

.:i"Q 

(in  T<)-  onojipn  C'n'Q 

.n"D 

saphol  referring  to  Raslii) 

cn'D 

.''D 

piDD 

.'DQ 

p  PDD 

.T'DC 

xop  p-is  j 

.p"D 
.p"-D 

bsj:n  ijai  l"T"d 

.n'nc 

(in  Tosapliotli) 

□n  ">:ai  yn'Q 

.n"-iQ 

(in  Tosapliotli) 

a-i  .'a-i  •'! 

iTubN  'T  .-iTy^bs*  'a-i  -N'n 

nniy  p -itybs 'a-i  .y"ax-i 

{'  n-n:t2-ia(r:))  i:a-i  -a'n 

Njn -ia  ia  nai  .n"aaT 

□biy  bz'  liiai  -y  K-ai 

^s'bo:  :a-i  .:'n 

sjin  an  -nrjM  -j'X-i  .n'n 

T'n'n  ni::n  ."'.-n 

D'ain  r\vc'-\  ."i"n-i 

L*nn  L'-xi  -n'n 
.nrm  '2-\  ,K"n  'a-> 
XTDH  an 
(niDDina)  bsiijn  ijai 

xax  -la  x''"'n  'ai  .x"an-i 

P2-I0  -ai  .a'n 

]}i:')r]'  n  .n-nn"  -ai  ."•'n 
pn:;'  n  .j:nv  n 

')  Kn  Jacob  to  wliidi  somcliines  references  are  made  in  tlie 
marginal  notes  to  tlie  Talmud  is  the  name  of  a  collection  of  all  Agadic 
passages  of  tlic  Talmud.  8ee  Jibove  ]).  76. 

"J  Frequently  occurring  in  Tosapliotli  Voni  Tnb  (llelUr>  and 
referring  to  the  !\iislin;i  Commentary  by  Iv-  (»b:i(l.j;i   I'.crtinoro. 


Key  'JO 

Ar.i!i;i;viATi()Ns  in  the  Taj.jMud. 

293 

niD^n  =  DmDnK'6J' 

.D"t:' 

'N3T  ;n  pnv  'i 

•T'Pn 

Dnay  niin^' 

.y"c; 

'lb  p  yt;'"in>  '-1 

.V'an 

iny  jnbt:' 

// 

Nji-iD  a-i 

.3"-1 

D"n  niix  "iiiy  in^ijj' 

.n"N  y":i» 

tr^pb  CJ^-l 

•V'n 

iryn  j^n  iny  jnbc'. 

y"nx  yc:' 

-I'Xn  '-) 

.D"l 

nyn  mv  -[ny  |^^c^' 

.T'r  y'K' 

pnj  an  -in^  'n 

.y'-\ 

t3£B'D  iB'in  iny  jn^K' 

.D"n  y'EJ' 

N3'py  '1 

.y"i 

Cri^Dtr 

.'SE^ 

p-ia  K>n  .xss '-) 

.D"-| 

nnna  niK' 

.Q"B' 

pyotr  'n 

.^'"■1 

■in'v  n'^tj' 

» 

-iry^N  p  pyn-i:'  'i 

•x'Pcn 

-idi^  ijivncr 

.y^ntr 

Dm3x  p  ptJ'DCJ'  i:ai 

" 

t:^::'  idvlt  .d^dc^'  dk* 

.      .K^'tJ' 

(nisDinn) 

nnnK'  itiK' 

// 

"xnr  p  py?0Ej'  'i 

.'•"ac'i 

nb"'sn  yDiK* 

.n"c^' 

bx'bo:  p  pyroti'  "i 

.:"3t:n 

.n 

I'XD  p   bsiDK'  '1 

.D"3C'1 

in^N'  N'jn 

.N"n 

(mQDina) 

DI^PJIN  Dij-in 

" 

"•pnv'  nobr  ijd-i 

.""^n 

3K2  nyK'D 

.n"n 

num  'Ej'N-i 

.n"T 

D'non  n"nn 

.n"n 

(niDDina)  ,Dn  ijai 

.n"T 

imn  n^DD 

'/ 

"iK'yoi  noi-in 

•o'ln 

.D* 

nisDin 

.'Din 

Nin^jD  .DDm"'o!?n 

.n"n^ 

nETSN  'n:j' 

•X-'XK' 

injin"  Di3-in 

'"n 

n  pNt^ 

.3"XK' 

.n"'n 

p  N^  DXK' 

.0"3XtJ' 

D':r\2  n-nn 

.3"n 

.V"XL"^ 

!^D3  •'OI^K'n 

.D"y3C' 

linn  nD  iin 

.T'Dn 

Dvon  n2'2C'  ."•on  i-stj' 

.T'C' 

D'airiD  D-x-'aj  min 

l"3n 

no-ij  prntj' 

.i"TnE^ 

iDi^  nio^n 

.:^'n 

nni:;'ni  nibxK' 

.[^'''ntr 

'3n  'Dj  N'jn 
Nop  N*:n 

•  n":n 
.p"n 

.JT'IE^' 
.^''HK' 

-ino  xop  Njn 

.D"pn 

3in  -1D:^• 

.n"DL'' 

-I1TV  n:yn 

•v"n 

u  cr'jr 

■2""^' 

pai  i:n 

•I'Tl 

n'r^D  'yoti' 

.0"K' 

nac  Dinn  .yoD*  xn 

.tj'"n 

'/ 

HD  byici'  min 

.Q"ya"k;'n 

.D"OtJ' 

.mm  nio!?n 

.n"n 

^DNJt^'  j 

.'XJK' 

O '  ri  o  p      n '  -^  n  -n 


Typographical  Work  of  A.  Ginsberg. 


I 


THEJBV^ISH  LAW 

MARRIAGE^njUDIVORCE, 

In  Ancient  and  Modern  Times,  and  its  Relation 

TO  THE   Laws  of  the  State, 

BY    M.    MIP:LZINER,    PH.    D., 

PROFESSOR    HEBREW    UNION    COLLEGE,    CINCINNATI,    O. 

Cloth    Binding,        -        Price,    $2.00. 

'  Dr.  Mielziner's  book  offers  completely  and  scientifically, 
perfectly  objective  and  impartial,  the  entire  matter  in  the  title 
page.  The  rich  and  instructive  material  of  the  book  is  en- 
hanced, not  only  by  the  author's  steady  references  to  non- 
Jewish  legislations  on  this  subject,  but  also  by  his  historical 
tact  in  pointing  out  all  modern  resolves  and  views  on  the  most 
important  points  of  his  researches,  which  gives  to  the  book  an 
additional  value,  as  that  material  was  never  compiled  sepa- 
rately. In  form  and  style  the  book  ma}'^  be  called  a  success. 
It  is  simple  and  perspicuous  in  style,  perfectlj^  intelligible  to 
the  ordinary  reader,  concise  and  strictly  logical  in  construct- 
ion, arrangement  and  definition." 

This  work  has  received  the  highest  encomiums  from  the 
LEGAL,  RELIGIOUS  and  SECULAR  PRESS 
in  this  country  as  well  as  abroad. 

SLAVERY     AMONO     HKBREWS. 

'  BY    M.    MIELZINER,    ph.    D.,    PROFESSOR    AT   THE    H     U     C. 

This  treatise  on  an  important  and  very  interesting  l>ranch  of 
Biblical  Archaology  was  published  in  1.S59,  at  Copenhagen  and  Leip- 
zig, under  the  title,  "Die  Verhirlt nisse  der  Sklaven  bei  den  alten 
Hebnoern,  nach  l)il)h'sc'heii  und  talinudisohen  (^uellen  dargestellt." 
The  little  work  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention  in  (ierniany,  and 
was  very  favorably  received  by  ^Mninent  scholars.  It  has  since  l)een 
quoted  in  numerous  works  on  the  difTerent  branches  of  Bi))lical  l^iter- 
ature  and  Antiquities,  among  others,  in  Oeliler's  Theology  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  especially  in  Herbert  Sj)encer's  Descriptive  Sociology 
(No.  7).  By  request  of  some  American  schohirs  and  tlieologians,  the 
late  Professor  H.  I.  Schmidt,  of  Columbia  College,  New  York,  fur- 
nished an  English  translation,  wliich  was  published  in  the  Gettysburg 
Evatigelicdl  Errinr,  vol.  xiii.  No.  li. 

As  both  the  original  German  edition  and  the  English  translation 
thereof  are  out  of  print,  we  republished  Prof.  Schmidt's  translation, 
in  a  somewhat  revised  edition.  Pri«*<^   25   Cts. 

THE  BLOCH  PUBLISHING  AND  PRINTING  CO., 

CINCINNATI,   O. 
Bloch  &.  Co., 

Chicago.  III. 


\) 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^PR  2  4  J978 


.oL 


nicr'T.nrT.'!!?! 


Form  L!)-Series  444 


if^*""'"'^ 


fB?o«)*"»: 


^\\\1^i 


1987 
A987 


t5}4!lft 


JO 


fEE    ^ 


B88 


uaL0CT06l9l 


QL  APR  1  0  2001 


t\V,  '-WII     —    • 


1\ 


4. 


(H^'    iiiiiiliiiiiB^      '"'""' 

i  AA    000  997  691      1 


